Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

It's not an invalid point, but I think it allows the counter point much more easily. With this in place, the government (and other canadians) can confidently claim that the actual news in Canada isn't found on facebook or instagram, so if that's where you're consuming "news" you need to change you method.

It's the beginning of a "how do we address rampant fake news?" strategy. First, you deplatform. Since they couldn't deplatform the fake stuff, instead they are removing the real stuff from those platforms. Then you can make firm assertions that the platforms are spreading only disinformation. Will this change minds? Probably not those already entrenched, but IMO it is likely to save the next wave of easy marks from being led astray.

So I was actually curious how people would justify what I thought most would call stupid legislation, then I realized that as with most things the Liberals do these days, there is really not justification that makes sense, so the usual suspects are now just literally making up the dumbest excuses possible instead.

Is that what it is? Addressing fake news? We've now removed the fake news? We are deplatforming multi billion dollar companies? lol.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by belsarius

My biggest disappointment is that the Liberal and NDP party are continuing to advertise with Meta. They should follow the lead of their elected officials.

It looks like the Bloc are the only Federal party to pull their advertising, as well as the Quebec provincial government being the only one on that level so far.

Well, political parties aren't on social media to sell content that they have produced. They're on there to gain influence over people who are users. A news org is paying a staff to find out about what's going on and potentially to analyze it to produce a knowledge product that has value, and which people derive value from consuming. Political parties just want to influence people and sway opinions or preferences. They're totally different uses for the platforms. The platforms aren't that well suited to sustainable use by news organizations, but they're very well-suited to use by political parties and special interests.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Azure

So I was actually curious how people would justify what I thought most would call stupid legislation, then I realized that as with most things the Liberals do these days, there is really not justification that makes sense, so the usual suspects are now just literally making up the dumbest excuses possible instead.

Is that what it is? Addressing fake news? We've now removed the fake news? We are deplatforming multi billion dollar companies? lol.

Who here is a liberal?

You didn't understand what I wrote at all, I am going to try and dumb it down for you:

- Social Media companies have been asked to crack down on foreign provacteurs using their platforms to promote misleading news
- Social media companies claim they are doing this, while actually achieving virtually nothing
- new solution needed: perhaps we remove ALL valid news from these sources. Then you can say that if you got news from facebook, it's wrong, with confidence. This may not convince dolts who are already sucked into the sticky trap, but is likely to instill this message into future generations of news readers.

There's no deplatforming multi billion dollar companies. Instead, you purposely remove the valid news outlets from them and can continue confidentially saying that only "fake" news, or whatever your preferred term, can be present there. So check another source (at least 1) when you see something on one of these sites.

What other solution is there? We've pretty much proven that at least 50% of society is too stupid to actually discern between news sources. The government can't abide the constant erosion of democracy that promotion of fake news causes. And as you've so readily identified, the government is unable to directly control the corporations or force them to self monitor in meaningful and useful ways. So what else could be done?

Also, get your news from somewhere better. Navigate to actual news websites. How embarrassing for you to admit that publicly.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Azure

So I was actually curious how people would justify what I thought most would call stupid legislation, then I realized that as with most things the Liberals do these days, there is really not justification that makes sense, so the usual suspects are now just literally making up the dumbest excuses possible instead.

Is that what it is? Addressing fake news? We've now removed the fake news? We are deplatforming multi billion dollar companies? lol.

I think my biggest issue with it, especially concerning criticism, is that I find it very opaque and vague. Broad sweeping generalizations without seemingly well-defined rules which just begs over-stepping of authority.

Remember: This Liberal Government. Not exactly the most moral or ethical group around. They tried to sneak through 18 months of unchecked, no oversight, unlimited spending under the guise of the Pandemic? Yeah. Those guys.

So while a lot of the detractors come off as 'Old Man Yells at Clouds' they arent necessarily entirely wrong either.

In my opinion the Government hasnt concretely demonstrated what this legislation is going to be used for, why its needed or what the Government's role, involvement and powers are.

Now, I'm not a fan of censorship of almost any kind. That being said, I also hold myself as someone who can generally tell when someone, be it a person or a 'news' outlet is trying to BS me.

I also have to acknowledge the reality that some people, seemingly a lot of people, do not possess that same ability and that perhaps there could be some benefit to getting some of this bogus BS news quashed.

They may begin by dropping a Tactical Nuke on the next Flat-Earther conference. I think the last one was in Edmonton.

Missed. Opportunity.

[PeteMoss]

I suspect most people just don't particularly care about this legislation and aren't going to get worked up about some tiff between Meta and the Canadian government that we all know will be settled.

I'm not pro or against this legislation. I don't care and I can't imagine that anyone who posts here really cares that much either. CBC posting on Facebook or not just doesn't impact me any. The algorithms will boost all the rage bait nonsense to the top of the feed anyways.

[Yoho]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1676673797863231489

Now it’s about Democracy.

[peter12]

This just keeps getting worse.

[Monahammer]

From the text of the act, bolding mine:

Treatment of news content
(3) This Act is to be interpreted and applied in a manner that is aimed at ensuring news content is made available by digital news intermediaries without undue manipulation or interference.

It was always about democracy. It's pretty dumb to think this amounted to a corporate shakedown. Have you heard of taxes before? If they wanted money they could just create a specific tax to achieve that instead of muddle about in censorship and everything that comes with it.

I've ended up greatly defending this bill and I don't even like it. But it's not what some are painting it to be, and I actually don't know how else we could begin to address this incipient problem in society.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

From the text of the act, bolding mine:

Treatment of news content
(3) This Act is to be interpreted and applied in a manner that is aimed at ensuring news content is made available by digital news intermediaries without undue manipulation or interference.

It was always about democracy. It's pretty dumb to think this amounted to a corporate shakedown. Have you heard of taxes before? If they wanted money they could just create a specific tax to achieve that instead of muddle about in censorship and everything that comes with it.

I've ended up greatly defending this bill and I don't even like it. But it's not what some are painting it to be, and I actually don't know how else we could begin to address this incipient problem in society.

It's a terrible bill. Get over it.

[Weitz]

It’s pretty clear they thought it was an easy way to help the failing media/news industry in Canada and are pretty shocked both companies chose to “pull out” of Canada.

[2Stonedbirds]

Worried about social media being a threat to democracy:

Makes cute tiktok videos on China owned platform.

Freedom of the press and private entities are a problem, better ban the #### and -recognize- democracy.

What a ####ing clown.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Not defending the law here but in theory wouldn’t not having verified reputable news sources on social media platforms that allow misinformation to be posted help some of the people who are more susceptible to falling for misinformation to more easily make the distinction between the two?

Originally Posted by Monahammer

It's the beginning of a "how do we address rampant fake news?" strategy. First, you deplatform. Since they couldn't deplatform the fake stuff, instead they are removing the real stuff from those platforms. Then you can make firm assertions that the platforms are spreading only disinformation. Will this change minds? Probably not those already entrenched, but IMO it is likely to save the next wave of easy marks from being led astray.

I understand the natural partisan push can be difficult to fight for some, but the arguments attempted for this law are mind bogglingly Bizzarro Jerry like and make absolutely no sense.

Step back a sec to understand what you are trying to say, what you actually want, understand what is being discussed and try to look at it without the perspective of "how do I defend this at all cost"

Right now you are both trying to argue in a twisted way that less access to legitimate news via social media is good. Think about it for a second.

This enactment regulates digital news intermediaries to enhance fairness in the Canadian digital news marketplace and contribute to its sustainability. It establishes a framework through which digital news intermediary operators and news businesses may enter into agreements respecting news content that is made available by digital news intermediaries. The framework takes into account principles of freedom of expression and journalistic independence.

This is the bill's goal and it had obvious side effects. Talking of abstracts of fake news and misinformation to create a narrative to grandstand on has no bearing on the details of the bill and Meta / Google's response.

I take it with these quoted responses, you are siding with what Meta / Google are doing?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Firebot

I understand the natural partisan push can be difficult to fight for some, but the arguments attempted for this law are mind bogglingly Bizzarro Jerry like and make absolutely no sense.

I don’t think you understand jack #### about a “natural partisan push” beyond your desire to fall back on that rhetorical crap any time you don’t want to actually respond directly to what someone posted. It’s like clockwork with you.

Step back a sec to understand what you are trying to say, what you actually want, understand what is being discussed and try to look at it without the perspective of "how do I defend this at all cost"

I made no statement defending the legislation, I just said that theoretically there could be a benefit to this consequence of it. Whether that consequence was intended or not. Would that benefit outweigh the cons to it? I don’t know, and I’d lean towards probably not but that has absolutely nothing do with being partisan no matter how desperately you try to make that link.

If you want to lecture people you should probably try knowing what you’re actually talking about in the first place instead of resorting to making stuff up.

Right now you are both trying to argue in a twisted way that less access to legitimate news via social media is good. Think about it for a second.

You realize that there are people who don’t use social media at all and that all of the news you’re worried about no longer having direct access to between photos of what your relative had for lunch and staged prank videos is still available on the same internet you would be accessing your social media accounts?

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Who here is a liberal?

........is this a serious question?

[Azure]

I just keep wondering what the Liberals actually need to do before the usual suspects around here will finally say they don't support them.

Or at the very least be able to admit that they don't support a specific bill.

Its like a cult where the leader can do no wrong, even while everyone is fixing to drink the special sauce.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

........is this a serious question?

It's a fair one. I've been called a Liberal partisan despite never once in my life voting for them (and they're the only major party I've never voted for). Don't mistake distaste for modern conservatism for support for the Liberal party or the current government.

And of course with this specific issue, many people who aren't outraged probably recognize that:

a) it's still early in the process, so who knows where it'll end up; and,

b) most Western jurisdictions (with governments led by parities from across the political spectrum) have or are considering implementing similar legislation.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by opendoor

It's a fair one. I've been called a Liberal partisan despite never once in my life voting for them (and they're the only major party I've never voted for). Don't mistake distaste for modern conservatism for support for the Liberal party or the current government.

And of course with this specific issue, many people who aren't outraged probably recognize that:

a) it's still early in the process, so who knows where it'll end up; and,

b) most Western jurisdictions (with governments led by parities from across the political spectrum) have or are considering implementing similar legislation.

Stop it! Don't you know logical arguments are the drink of the devil. If you don't hate trudeau with the passion of a million burning suns then you are nothing but a partisan hack.

[PepsiFree]

People who hate everything the Liberals do love pretending anyone who also doesn’t hate everything the Liberals do is a pro-Liberal cult-member apologist who supports the Liberals no matter what.

“This is terrible!!!”
“It’s not that terrible.”
“Wow, Liberal lover, huh? GUESS YOU LOVE EVERY SINGLE THING THEY’VE EVER DONE AND HATE DEMOCRACY.”

One of the most entertaining elements of this thread tbh.

[PepsiFree]

Oh, and vague references to “the usual suspects” like this thread isn’t just the same 20 dudes having a meaningless circular conversation for years on end.

Just say who you’re referring to you complete dorks lol.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Azure

I just keep wondering what the Liberals actually need to do before the usual suspects around here will finally say they don't support them.

Or at the very least be able to admit that they don't support a specific bill.

Its like a cult where the leader can do no wrong, even while everyone is fixing to drink the special sauce.

I dressed up as Trudeau for Halloween