Because the “free for all” market that gave rise to Alex Jones and FOX news, etc. really improved American society…
[flagged]
Canada to regulate podcasts
61–70 of 105 posts
Re: Canada to regulate podcasts
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It also gave me access to a dozen woodworkers who taught me how to work safely and efficiently. And also "woodworkers" who would take transformers out of microwaves and run the resulting current through bare nails to make fractal lightning patterns in wood. If you're starting with a blank slate on wood-based projects how do you differentiate the former from the latter?
Common sense?
This is meaningless because what "common sense" is changes person to person. The person yelling about how 5G will damage your brain would say that it's "common sense" that "radiation" is bad for you so 5G must be bad.
You're basically saying that the way you avoid doing something dangerous recommend by others is by already knowing that it's dangerous. Well duh.
Re: Canada to regulate podcasts
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
The free for all market also gave me access to a hundred chefs who vastly improved my cooking. It also gave me access to a dozen woodworkers who taught me how to work safely and efficiently. A whole host of gardeners in my USDA zone with hyper local content relevant to me and taught me about native plants. The free market has saved me thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars in home repair costs. From changin…
> It also gave me access to a dozen woodworkers who taught me how to work safely and efficiently. And also "woodworkers" who would take transformers out of microwaves and run the resulting current through bare nails to make fractal lightning patterns in wood. If you're starting with a blank slate on wood-based projects how do you differentiate the former from the latter?
> take transformers out of microwaves and run the resulting current through bare nails to make fractal lightning patterns in wood
This is super interesting, thanks for the tip.
Here’s an overview for anyone that’s curious:
Re: Canada to regulate podcasts
#64CRTC, like most Canadian regulators, do not have the resources to enforce their rules. This will be yet another useless unenforceable burden.
Oh my favourite thing about Canadian regulation:
1. Create a new regulation because of the 1% troublemakers
2. Realize there are enforcement costs
3. Force 100% of regulated entities to start paying a user fee in order to offset the enforcement costs.
Madness.
Re: Canada to regulate podcasts
#65On one hand, it is wrong to limit people’s opinions to be discussed and talked about, and I am sure there are a lot of issues when it comes to Canadian politics, economics, etc. On the other hand, since probably around 2014, we have a lot of grifters surfaced online who are only interested in monetizing their content with no integrity or accountability, across the whole political spectrum. So I don’t know how to feel…
What sort of "accountability" do you have in mind?
Re: Canada to regulate podcasts
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
But that's not the main issue. The problem is regulating content.
Rules like this have existed in Canada for 40+ years, and regulating content is quite popular up in Canada. See Quebec and it's French-first laws. You might see it as a problem, but the majority of Canadians are fine with it.
There's a huge difference between "traditional media" (TV, Radio, etc) and Podcasts. I get why they would want to regulate traditional media, there are only so many frequencies to tune your radio to and only so many channels you can watch and you have an audience by default. None of that is true with podcasts, they only reason for regulation here is control over what people can and can't say.
Re: Canada to regulate podcasts
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
From what I know, it's just that you need a specified amount of air time from Canadian, French and indigenous presenters. What they choose to do with it is up to them. It's more of a pass the mic around so every group gets some airtime law, and not so much a you cannot talk about this or that. The idea is that it acts a bit like human rights, at balancing majority rules. Where financial incentives would prefer to alw…
> it's just that you need a specified amount of air time from French Canadian and indigenous presenters. It's only specific to Canadian and Indigenous content. The content does not have to be French.
In a streaming on demand, user driven world, how do you define “air time”? I can’t see how you could force consumers to consume a certain amount of CanCon, and simply ensuring CanCon %| of content available doesn’t make sense either since a small amount of content could be consumed up to 100% of total platform consumption, and a large amount of content could be consumed as little as 0% of the total platform consumption.
Re: Canada to regulate podcasts
#68On one hand, it is wrong to limit people’s opinions to be discussed and talked about, and I am sure there are a lot of issues when it comes to Canadian politics, economics, etc. On the other hand, since probably around 2014, we have a lot of grifters surfaced online who are only interested in monetizing their content with no integrity or accountability, across the whole political spectrum. So I don’t know how to feel…
> On the other hand, since probably around 2014, we have a lot of grifters surfaced online who are only interested in monetizing their content with no integrity or accountability, across the whole political spectrum
The difference as I see it is say the "grifters" were broadcasting on a radio station or a TV spot, they would be taking up space that other broadcasts could take up. But in terms of the internet there is no such limit. Through the lens of "traditional media" you can't always tell someone "just turn it off and watch something else" because there are only a limited number of broadcasts available, but you can definitely tell that to someone that doesn't like a Youtube video or a podcast.
Re: Canada to regulate podcasts
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
But that's not the main issue. The problem is regulating content.
Rules like this have existed in Canada for 40+ years, and regulating content is quite popular up in Canada. See Quebec and it's French-first laws. You might see it as a problem, but the majority of Canadians are fine with it.
As long as Canada interferes only with Canadian content that might be fine.
Re: Canada to regulate podcasts
#70Because the “free for all” market that gave rise to Alex Jones and FOX news, etc. really improved American society…
Nobody is forcing anyone to watch it. Many people watch it voluntarily. If we are so sure that these media are so bad for people, why are so many people still watching it? If the answer is that these media "hack" the human brain, then I don't think that banning the producers is the right way to go. The root cause is that people are too easily tricked. Banning the producers will only cause other media, such as YouTube…
Exactly right. The solution to a mass movement toward an ignorant and blind viewpoint isn't to censor it, it's to dismantle it with an opposing viewpoint and to provide a less ignorant way forward. Censorship of any kind doesn't solve anything despite what people want to think about Alex Jones or any others.