The title doesn't explain it very well. Electronic media in Canada has always been regulated by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, which has had long-standing rules in place to prioritize "Canadian Content." The CRTC mandates that a certain percentage of the content aired on Canadian television or radio stations must be produced by Canadian artists.
This was initially pitched as a way to prioritize Canadian culture in Canada by ensuring that Canadian artists got prioritized access to Canadian audiences. However, the corporate monopolization of the music industry and the way record label contracts work with radio stations has meant instead that Canadians with radios on in their cars or their workplaces have to listen to the same 10 songs over and over again. If you have the government saying such a percentage of what you play has to be Canadian, and you have a record label saying that a certain percentage of what you play has to be their sponsored artists or you lose their contract, the result is endless repeats of Nickelback, Justin Bieber and the Tragically Hip with no variety at all. It's even worse on television, because there have only ever been two or three TV shows produced by Canadian studios that were actually any good.
These rules have never really been applied to the internet, because it's much more difficult to restrict Canadians' access to content that is not produced by Canadians on platforms like YouTube, where the audience can choose what they watch and when
Bill C-10 was initially pitched as a way to rectify this, and to reassert the CRTC's stranglehold on what cultural content Canadians can consume. It was originally targeted at platforms, not individual content creators, but that clause was removed from the bill in committee. The way the bill reads now, the CRTC and other government agencies will be able to order YouTube, Facebook or any other social media company to remove any content posted by a Canadian.
The moral principle is that the radio spectrum is a finite public good. If the government is going to ban everyone except you from transmitting radio signals between X frequency and Y frequency, they are going to have some demands to make sure that things they think should be available are available.
These rules have never really been applied to the internet, because it's much more difficult to restrict Canadians' access to content that is not produced by Canadians on platforms like YouTube, where the audience can choose what they watch and when
The Broadcasting Act does not apply to the internet because the internet does not broadcast. You watching any one of the billion YouTube videos does not meaningfully limit your neighbour's ability to watch their choice of that billion, so there is no justification for curating the internet the same as a system where the entire country had to watch the same four shows.
That doesn't sound like Justin Trudeau at all. Are you sure it doesn't punish commenters for being too patriotic to Canada?
I guess he meant to say China instead of Canada. It's a common mistake.
Canada, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the CCP.
The title doesn't explain it very well. Electronic media in Canada has always been regulated by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, which has had long-standing rules in place to prioritize "Canadian Content." The CRTC mandates that a certain percentage of the content aired on Canadian television or radio stations must be produced by Canadian artists.
This was initially pitched as a way to prioritize Canadian culture in Canada by ensuring that Canadian artists got prioritized access to Canadian audiences. However, the corporate monopolization of the music industry and the way record label contracts work with radio stations has meant instead that Canadians with radios on in their cars or their workplaces have to listen to the same 10 songs over and over again. If you have the government saying such a percentage of what you play has to be Canadian, and you have a record label saying that a certain percentage of what you play has to be their sponsored artists or you lose their contract, the result is endless repeats of Nickelback, Justin Bieber and the Tragically Hip with no variety at all. It's even worse on television, because there have only ever been two or three TV shows produced by Canadian studios that were actually any good.
These rules have never really been applied to the internet, because it's much more difficult to restrict Canadians' access to content that is not produced by Canadians on platforms like YouTube, where the audience can choose what they watch and when
Bill C-10 was initially pitched as a way to rectify this, and to reassert the CRTC's stranglehold on what cultural content Canadians can consume. It was originally targeted at platforms, not individual content creators, but that clause was removed from the bill in committee. The way the bill reads now, the CRTC and other government agencies will be able to order YouTube, Facebook or any other social media company to remove any content posted by a Canadian.
That sounds like such a bad law. What if I have no interest broadcasting Canadian content?
You get fined millions and then you get your broadcasting licence revoked.
Yes but by what moral principle?
The moral principle is that the radio spectrum is a finite public good. If the government is going to ban everyone except you from transmitting radio signals between X frequency and Y frequency, they are going to have some demands to make sure that things they think should be available are available.
The Broadcasting Act does not apply to the internet because the internet does not broadcast. You watching any one of the billion YouTube videos does not meaningfully limit your neighbour's ability to watch their choice of that billion, so there is no justification for curating the internet the same as a system where the entire country had to watch the same four shows.
Wasn't there a Babylon Bee article like two days ago about exactly this but with China?
Now they can do their illegal surveilling of us legally