Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[btimbit]

I don't care what you call it, or what it looks like, but a system that prevents any moron from spending $8 to start a blog and calling themselves a journalist would be a terrific step forward

[JohnnyB]

We're in a period where knowing what is true online is increasingly difficult, and the ability to create very convincing fake news has become democratized. With a combo of AutoGPT and Midjourney, you can now spin up a fake news site in a day that will make up convincingly written fake news with convincing photorealistic images to accompany it according to whatever narrative you want 24/7. I don't agree with certifying members of the media as a solution, but there needs to be regulation.

Anyways, for those who are interested, UNESCO has been in the process of developing guidelines that relate to this as part of their Internet for Trust initiative. The document is still in the draft format with public consultations ongoing. The role of media and standards has been a big point of discussion during the development and consultation process.

https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/4822...4031.locale=en

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by 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.

You don't need access. The most powerful forces in media today don't go anywhere but spew out content daily. Tucker Carlson (before he got fired) didn't go anywhere (for the most part) but was much more important force than the random OAN and Fox News people at the White House press conferences who ask their leading questions.

We need to stop giving these people attention. Its a much better result for the Rebel or Kenan Bexte if they ask for access and they get banned. They'll generate many more donations and get a ton more written about them if you give them what they want.

[Just a guy]

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.

My points were about the regulatory board. So, no you have not answered any of my points. Not trying to argumentative, but I see these as major gaps in what you are trying to put forward.

[GGG]

You could also invoke the not-withstanding clause and the constitutional problem goes away.

It’s political suicide but the it’s non-constitutional argument is easily solved.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Firebot

Fuzz you still don't get it.

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.

Just want point out that this is incorrect. The legislation which regulates (or creates self-regulating bodies) for these professions all prohibit both (1) persons engaging in the profession without a licence; and (2) persons holding themselves out as engaging in the profession without a licence. That clearly infringes on the Charter-protected right of expression. However, its clearly justified under section 1 of the Charter.

[GGG]

Is the solution the government suing people for defamation? That seems to be what people are suggesting is the remedy.

I think the government suing is a worse outcome for democracy as they have unlimited resources to sue as compared to journalists. I would much rather a body of journalists suppress speech than have the governments use the courts to supress speech.

[Yamer]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: introduce and make mandatory courses regarding media literacy in the high school curriculum.

And start that yesterday.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Just want point out that this is incorrect. The legislation which regulates (or creates self-regulating bodies) for these professions all prohibit both (1) persons engaging in the profession without a licence; and (2) persons holding themselves out as engaging in the profession without a licence. That clearly infringes on the Charter-protected right of expression. However, its clearly justified under section 1 of the Charter.

That is not the same as protected under the constitution (the term I used), do you agree? My statement is correct and your assertation is incorrect.

Legislation is not the same as the constitution. Our marijuana laws as written 20 years ago were found to be unconstitutional for example as it violated the charter of rights.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by Yamer

I've said it before and I'll say it again: introduce and make mandatory courses regarding media literacy in the high school curriculum.

And start that yesterday.

Cats out the bag now, 20 second videos will clock work orange the masses.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Firebot

That is not the same as protected under the constitution (the term I used), do you agree? My statement is correct and your assertation is incorrect.

Legislation is not the same as the constitution. Our marijuana laws as written 20 years ago were found to be unconstitutional for example as it violated the charter of rights.

Sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to say.

[PeteMoss]

and people who are already media literate - just don't reply if the person is obviously baiting you. You might get caught a time or two but it becomes pretty obvious who is trying to get your riled up. Reply and they win.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to say.

I am talking about protection under the constitution, while you are talking about legislation relating to specific fields.

Freedom of press and media is an explicitly and directly protected field under the constitution, and is even above our right to vote in the charter. You cannot say the same for doctors and engineers (or your personal field of work, right to work is not a constitutional right).

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Firebot

I am talking about protection under the constitution, while you are talking about legislation relating to specific fields.

Freedom of press and media is an explicitly and directly protected field under the constitution, and is even above our right to vote in the charter. You cannot say the same for doctors and engineers (or your personal field of work, right to work is not a constitutional right).

Section 1 of the Charter specifically lays out that there are limits on the Freedoms listed and can be legislated, such as the case with hate speech. I think that a case could be made about the detriment to society that misinformation has in today's age and legislation is required to ensure the value of the speech.

However, the “degree of constitutional protection may vary depending on the nature of the expression at issue...the low value of the expression may be more easily outweighed by the government objective” (Thomson Newspapers Co., supra at paragraph 91; JTI-Macdonald Corp., supra; Lucas, supra at paragraphs 116 and 121; Sharpe, supra at paragraph 181; Whatcott, supra at paragraphs 147-148; Butler, supra at page 150).

From the link you shared.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Firebot

I am talking about protection under the constitution, while you are talking about legislation relating to specific fields.

Freedom of press and media is an explicitly and directly protected field under the constitution, and is even above our right to vote in the charter. You cannot say the same for doctors and engineers (or your personal field of work, right to work is not a constitutional right).

Ontario's Professional Engineer's Act prohibits anyone who does not hold a licence from holding themselves out as an engineer. This means you cannot go around telling people you are an engineer. That is a clear limit on people's constitutionally-protected freedom of expression. However, clearly, that limit is reasonable and demonstrably justified and therefore is saved by section 1 of the Charter.

Similar legislation licensing journalists and prohibiting people from holding themselves out as a licensed journalist if they do not hold a licence could, possibly, also be saved under section 1 of the Charter. (I have no idea whether it actually would be - that would depend on the actual language in the legislation and the evidence adduced by the parties, etc. - but its certainly possible.)

Hopefully, that was more clear.

[opendoor]

Even ignoring the negative aspects of it, regulating journalists is probably pointless, as most of the crap that gets dissemintated isn't by people who even call themselves journalists.

Probably the only way to even begin to tackle misinformation is to make it less profitable for platforms to amplify it. Social media companies are currently mostly shielded from liability on what's posted on their platforms, on the premise that they're not a broadcaster or a publisher. But when they serve, prioritize, and profit from that content through algorithmically generated feeds, I'm not sure that really holds up anymore.

On things where they're not shielded from liability (like copyright infringement), they are able to deal with it rigorously and almost immediately. So I don't really buy the idea that it would be impossible to moderate content effectively.

Obviously that can only do so much; they can't police every single thing some random person posts for their 2 followers. But if social media companies were open to being sued for libel if they don't take action to remove or retract widely disseminated lies like newspapers or broadcasters are, that would likely cut down on the worst of the worst.

[JohnnyB]

One possible alternative approach would be something like:

1. Require platforms online that allow self-publishing to meet strong KYC standards for anyone publishing content and to register their KYC process in a registry with the government,
2. Pass regulations for ISPs to block platforms that aren't in the registry,
3. Require international platforms to block the visibility of content from non-KYCed international users from access in Canada, and
4. Strengthen laws about disinformation that put the onus on individuals to not share untrue and misleading information online (including via bots and agents).
5. If an issue of disinformation is raised and it's found the platform it was on had not followed the standards for KYCing people who publish content, fine them, and if it happens repeatedly then remove them from the registry and have ISPs block their platform

People operating online under aliases or online names would be fine, but their actual identity would still need be registered with whatever platform they're posting on so that they could be held legally responsible for whatever they share.

Canada alone is probably not a big enough market to lean much on the big platforms, but Canada could potentially work with the EU and other similarly aligned countries in getting a shared regulatory framework with common standards. I don't see the US going in for it.

The UNESCO proposal I shared focuses a lot more on the preservation of human rights in contexts of regulating and moderating content online, but prevention of purposeful misinformation online is going to a more and more pressing issue.

[Just a guy]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

One possible alternative approach would be something like:

1. Require platforms online that allow self-publishing to meet strong KYC standards for anyone publishing content and to register their KYC process in a registry with the government,
2. Pass regulations for ISPs to block platforms that aren't in the registry,
3. Require international platforms to block the visibility of content from non-KYCed international users from access in Canada, and
4. Strengthen laws about disinformation that put the onus on individuals to not share untrue and misleading information online (including via bots and agents).
5. If an issue of disinformation is raised and it's found the platform it was on had not followed the standards for KYCing people who publish content, fine them, and if it happens repeatedly then remove them from the registry and have ISPs block their platform

People operating online under aliases or online names would be fine, but their actual identity would still need be registered with whatever platform they're posting on so that they could be held legally responsible for whatever they share.

Canada alone is probably not a big enough market to lean much on the big platforms, but Canada could potentially work with the EU and other similarly aligned countries in getting a shared regulatory framework with common standards. I don't see the US going in for it.

The UNESCO proposal I shared focuses a lot more on the preservation of human rights in contexts of regulating and moderating content online, but prevention of purposeful misinformation online is going to a more and more pressing issue.

Point 1 = Process
Point 2 = Process
Point 3 = Process
Point 4 = Hornets nest
Point 5 = Process

All the discussion is still on point 4

[Maritime Q-Scout]

For clarification if you regulate journalism, I'd assume that blogs and such would still be permitted but you wouldn't have the 'seal of approval' or have the same access journalists have.

If that's the case, I fail to see how someone's charter rights are infringed.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Nm