Canada to regulate podcasts
podnews.net
podnews.net
The fear is of indirect censorship. As was the case with law enforcement/intelligence informally requesting take downs in the US, Canada will be making this process formal.
> Canada's current spat with Google over news is a recent example.
That was particularly hilarious.
That's bad.
And given this newest revision is talking about Canadian values you might be regulated on the content of your show with that one or two man team to deal with the show and any issues.
It's great for large businesses but not small. It's going to be great for cbx and global who can hire someone whose whole job is dealing with regulatory burdens and applying for grants. but Joe entertainer doing his podcast on YouTube is going to have a tough time dealing with the regulations.
I personally don't know why people fear anything here. All you have to do to comply is add some Canadian content to your platform and recommend it and promote it in listings. You don't need to take down any other content or omit certain topic/subject matter.
The only question is, does it work? Does it really help promote Canadian made content and Canadian thoughts and ideas? Or does it do a poor job and just end up hamstringing our media companies internationally and financially.
We're not exactly talking about little mom&pop hobby podcasts. If you're bringing in $10M in revenue, you're a major media operation -- podcast being in that case really a kind of marketing label for what's basically a "radio station."
So given how things work in this country it was only a matter of time before the approach that the regulator here takes to major media operation around content would apply.
These laws probably confuse and enrage many Americans -- as they do for many Canadians -- but they've been a thing for decades; in large part they reflect two unique aspects of Canada: 1) its cultural and economic position in regards to being a separate country (believe it or not) adjacent to the US while being on the whole linguistically, economically culturally similar enough that there's a constant struggle to not be completely subsumed 2) The unique position of the French language, French Canadian, and Quebecois culture in confederation. (And, increasingly, indigenous culture)
Canada is in a constant struggle to localize and protect local culture. And in the process there are often dubious monopolistic forces that inject themselves into that process. But the argument (not my argument) is basically that in a "free" and "open competition", the US would basically bury/eliminate Canada.
Finally, Canada is officially "multicultural" rather than "melting pot" by stated ideology; which means that state institutions / regulatory agencies actually have concrete roles in protecting cultural diversity. Again, controversial, but likely a foreign approach to Americans and most Europeans (not all) whose societies operate with the assumption of single unified ethno-linguistic nation state. (This is explicit policy choice made by governments in the 70s/80s in an effort to stop the Canadian state from disintegrating under centrifugal separatist forces.)
"Today, the CRTC is advancing its regulatory plan to modernize Canada’s broadcasting framework and ensure online streaming services make meaningful contributions to Canadian and Indigenous content."
I would ask, who decides what is 'meaningful'? This sounds like an open door to censorship to me. Was not the requirement to make 'meaningful' contributions to society the excuse used by the Soviets and Red Chinese to stifle publications.
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 always tailor to the majority since it makes more money, this enforces that minorities get some proportional airtime on big media channels.
It's only specific to Canadian and Indigenous content. The content does not have to be French.
The rules have been around for 40+ years in one form or another.
But if you didn't register, your "audience large enough that you can pull in 10 MCAN in ad deals" operation might fly under the radar!
If you're already incorporated, you've already told the government about yourself.
I've heard about these regulations with local content quotes (doesn't France also have these?) and I can imagine no scenario where this $10M figure would hit anyone who should not have been regulated before if their only differentiator was if they did video on youtube or audio (somewhere) only. (I don't know enough about the Canadian regulations, so this is a not comment on those, only on "why the exception for podcasts, probably oversight").
The problem in Canada is that there are ... cabals ... of interests that have spent the last 200 years using the somewhat-artifically (but in large part necessary) erected walls between us and the United States for their own very self-serving interests that actually harm their fellow Canadians. Telecoms pricing being the obvious example.
In any case, it infects both major political parties, goes across the whole spectrum, and is a feature of the Canadian state since at least before the American Revolution.
> Canada is in a constant struggle to localize and protect local culture. And in the process there are often dubious monopolistic forces that inject themselves into that process.
I'd argue monopolistic control is the goal. The latest CRTC regulations seems a fairly straight-forward cash grab to prop up legacy media companies that would otherwise fail for their lack of competitiveness. Further, the process of putting out these regulations has been appallingly undemocratic. Bill C-11, like its predecessor Bill C-10, were not allowed to be debated in the house (only the 3rd time such a motion has been used in Canada)[0].
And lets be real, its not the average Canadian that benefits here. Its the owners and shareholders of the companies.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Streaming_Act#History
"its not the average Canadian that benefits here" is maybe the point though -- these things became policy because, in the past, the average Canadian's interests were maybe taking precedence over those of (fairly large) minority interests in such a way that they were causing civil problems in Canada. By which I mean, if we don't take care of making sure that e.g. French & Indigenous culture has strong representation, we actually risk problems with the political cohesion of the country.
As we know, averages hide important details. In statistics, but also in cultural issues.
Many of the things we're talking about here look entirely different if you're looking out at them from e.g. Quebec or the North.
This will be yet another useless unenforceable burden.
Madness.
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.
Canada to require registration of podcasters and streaming services - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37728464 - Oct 2023 (22 comments)
You might see it as a problem, but the majority of Canadians are fine with it.
I disagree with the premise however: it’s not that American media has so much influence on American consumers, rather American media is producing the product that their consumers want. The influence is basically reversed.
But from where I’m standing, only one party is committed to cutting off its nose to spite its face… and it’s not the Dems.
The reason for the two alternate realities in the same country is primarily to do with what information you consume.
As an exercise, go to the front page of Reddit everyday. You will almost always notice on the first page or the first few there are always posts on politics. And the vast majority of these posts are the "bad" takes/actions/scandals on rebuplicans/conservatives.
If you go to r/conservative , you will see the "bad" takes/actions/scandals of the democrats/liberals.
On Reddit the echo chamber for democrats is the entirety of Reddit except for a select few subs. The echo chamber for conservatives is in their own subreddits. On conservative websites this is the opposite.
If one looks only at the Reddit front page, no doubt they would not like the republicans because it's a highlight of their low points. I.e a Reverse Instagram, post all the bad parts of your life.
This is the issue. The two realities is from getting information about how "good" your side is and a feed about all the bad stuff from the other side.
The reason why you think 50% of the population is like that is precisely because the information you have received about that side is their bad highlight reel. And they will equally think the other 50% of the aisle is brainwashed because of all they are viewing your bad highlight reel
The mechanism heavily contributes towards group-think, with any dissenting opinion being completely buried.
Usually, delusion in the form of institutional acceptance. Religion, nationalism, etc.
Currently in the US, in the form of institutional rejection, which is equally dishonest, but considerably more messy.
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 or Facebook, to fill the gap.
I would say that the answer to solve this is education, but unfortunately many states have decided that education is the bad thing, instead of blantantly misleading information. Even if you could teach it successfully in school, how many adults are going to go back to school to learn the media they're consuming is bad? If you're an ardent fox news viewer, how will you view that information?
It's not a solve but it's a help.
I wouldn't say this is a great analogy, because leaded gas was the only gas available, and alternatives to cars were disappearing in many cities. If you wanted to participate in the economy, you pretty much had to use gasoline.
You could argue the market would have gone there anyways, but it's actually insane how much damage to human health and the environment was done in the interim until regulation forced the matter.
In a liberal society we allow things we don't like in order to maintain individual freedom as a higher good than "perfect" society.
Those who do envision "perfect" society and pursue it with the power of the state are the worst sort of authoritarians, because it's all done "for your own good", no matter what you think.
Although I don't have an opinion on this particular podcast situation, this statement doesn't hold any water. You are implying that if people do something, it must not be bad for them because.. people continue to do it.
There are tons of things people do that are objectively bad for them. Hard drugs (fentanyl, etc.) being an easy example.
The free market has saved me thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars in home repair costs. From changing my blower motor, to installing my Ecobee w/o a common wire, to installing ceiling brackets correctly, repairing my garage trolley.
The free market gave me podcasts and podcasters which taught me a ton about international conflicts and their history. Gave me access to brilliant environmentalists and conservationists doing incredible field work.
The real price I had to pay was hearing people endlessly, endlessly, endlessly complain about, and in so doing, amplify people that they don't listen to, disagree with, and think are harmful.
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?
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.
I also don't know what point you're making.
Since some people can't tell who the experts are and what a beginner is, we need to regulate youtubers?
This is super interesting, thanks for the tip.
Here’s an overview for anyone that’s curious:
They have both been sued for billions of dollars and lost in court for sustained campaigns of damaging lies.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/10/us/politics/alex-jones-sa...
All I did was point out that they aren't able to say whatever they want without permission or friction because there are consequences to intentionally lying over time to hurt people.
You either believe in the relevant principle or you don't. These sort of side-swipes at bedrock American principles are completely uncalled for
If you want to run a hotel or a burger joint or a general contractor, you need a license. It will be difficult to push back against the idea that tech companies should be treated the same.
Not saying that this will be a good thing. Just that it will happen.
That said, online streaming services are an odd one to target. I would expect the bigger fish to be website hosts, stores, etc. Or is that already regulated similarly?
The Internet functionally destroyed this regime by walking away from publicly regulated spectrum. Canada wants those powers back, so they passed a bill which lets them apply Canadian Content regulations to streaming services that Canadians use. The podcast registration requirement is an extension of this: if they plan to require that people listen to[0] a certain percentage of Canadian Content[1] podcasts, then they need the services that push them to users to register so they know who to enforce the rules on.
Website hosts and stores would be regulated under other rules that are very similar to the ones in other Anglosphere countries, i.e. without this weird censorship regime. It's only "streaming services" - i.e. "websites that look like something that would have been regulated under CRTC CanCon rules if they didn't have the Internet" - that are getting regulated here.
[0] The Internet is ostensibly a "pull" medium, but in practice, everyone has recommendation algorithms which look like a more elaborate version of a broadcaster if you squint at them.
[0] Which, BTW, is not content made by Canadians. If you're a Canadian creative you have to jump through a lot of hoops in order to be officially recognized as "Canadian Content".
This is the backstory of Bob and Doug McKenzie, a pair of characters developed for the sketch comedy show SCTV:
> Bob and Doug, two dim-witted beer-swilling brothers wearing heavy winter clothing and tuques, would comment on various elements of Canadian life and culture, frequently employing the interjection "Eh?" and derisively calling each other "hoser."
> The sketch was conceived when SCTV moved to the CBC television network. Due to the difference in the amount of time allocated for commercials, each episode to be broadcast on that network was two minutes longer than those syndicated to the United States. The CBC network heads asked the show's producers to add specifically identifiably Canadian content for those two minutes, in line with government broadcast regulations. Rick Moranis and Dave Thomas thought that this was a ridiculous request, given that the show had been taped in Canada, with a mostly Canadian cast and crew, for two years.[2] The request inspired them to create a parody that would incorporate every aspect of the humorous stereotype of Canadians.
> > *Various interveners, including* the global streaming services Apple Canada Inc. (Apple), Netflix Services Canada ULC (Netflix), Spotify, Roku, Inc. (Roku), TikTok Canada (TikTok) and *Google LLC (Google)*, as well as the Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB) and the Motion Picture Association of Canada (MPAC), agreed with the proposed registration requirements, and *considered them to be light.*