Roundup: Some of the misconceptions around C-10

Posted on by

The other day, I made a somewhat snarky comment over Twitter in response to an op-ed in The Line, because people are still making stuff up about Bill C-10. Like, out of whole cloth, complete fiction, because they do not grasp the basic mechanics of regulation in this country.

So, with this in mind, here are a few reminders. Start by re-reading my piece in National Magazine about the bill. Individual content uploaders are not being regulated – only the platforms themselves. The CRTC is not going to takedown YouTube content, and it’s not going to regulate news. If it regulates Facebook, it’s not regulating the algorithm of timelines – it’s only regulating if Facebook is acting like a broadcaster of scripted content, or when they livestream baseball games (which they have done). The reason why YouTube as a platform, for example, is being targeted is because it is the largest music streaming platform in the world, and this is why they want to bring it into the ambit of CanCon regulations, governing both discoverability (so that the algorithm shows more Canadian artists in suggested playlists), and contributing financially to the system that helps provide grants and royalties for Canadian artists. People keep mentioning Instagram and TikTok, but they’re not really broadcasting platforms.

So how does the CRTC determine what counts as CanCon? Well, they have a formula that assigns points to it, and 6/10 or 8/10 points gets particular CanCon status. These are all determined by regulations under the Broadcasting Act. Remember that legislation is the framework and policy direction – the nitty-gritty rules get determined by regulation, and it follows a process of development that involves stakeholder engagement and consultation, and is done at the bureaucratic level. It’s not Cabinet pulling rules out of their asses, nor should it be. You don’t want Cabinet to be putting its thumb on the scale, which is why there is an arm’s length regulatory body, being the CRTC. And it’s not just the cabal of commissioners who are making these regulations either, in spite of what certain people are claiming.

https://twitter.com/G_Gallant/status/1395427604107300867

This brings me to my next point – the very notion that the CRTC is going to police the whole of social media is completely crackers on the face of it. They barely have enough resources to do their existing job (and if you listen to some of the reasoning around this week’s telecom decision, they seem to think they can’t handle doing the work of wholesale internet prices). If you think they’re going to somehow hire an army of bureaucrats to police your tweets, you should be certifiable.

Now, this isn’t to say that C-10 is without problems, because they are there. For one, the Broadcasting Act may be the wrong vehicle for this, as it was about regulating the limited bandwidth for TV and radio. It will be on platforms to adjust their algorithms to make CanCon more discoverable, which is going to be the high-level work, but there are particular concerns around meeting the objectives under the Act, which involve things like “safeguard, enrich and strengthen the cultural, political, social and economic fabric of Canada,” and whether these platforms will moderate content to try and fit those objectives, and that moderation will likely involve the use of AI, which is where we have particular concerns. And those are legitimate concerns, but they have nothing to do with the Orwellian picture being painted of moderated tweets, and newsfeeds being monkeyed with, or “takedown notices.” The level of complete hysteria around this bill, rooted in a complete ignorance of how regulatory bodies work – and a great deal of partisan disinformation – is making the debate around this bill utterly loony (at least in English Canada). Yes, it’s complicated, but don’t fall for easy narratives.

Good reads:

  • Boris Johnson says that Trudeau will be attending the G7 leaders’ meeting in the UK, but Trudeau’s office won’t confirm it.
  • NACI’s updated guidance is to roll out second doses faster because certain variants are not as slowed by a single dose as they are by two.
  • The federal government plans to consult with provinces before they do anything about closing quarantine hotels.
  • Seamus O’Regan says the Americans are unwilling to come to an agreement on softwood lumber, as they doubled tariffs last week.
  • The federal government is pledging $25 million in aid for Palestinian civilians, while Marc Garneau is using stronger language to condemn Israeli settlements.
  • It appears that the government has been quietly moving on strengthening its Indo-Pacific strategy as a way of decoupling from ties with China.
  • The government’s use payments for consultants rose by another $1.3 billion in the last year (which shouldn’t be a surprise given the circumstances of the pandemic).
  • The Supreme Court ruled that media outlets don’t have a right to access sealed court records once exhibits are withdrawn when a court process is ended.
  • In light of the discovery of a mass grave at a former residential school, MPs agreed to fast-track a bill on creating a national day for truth and reconciliation.
  • Here is what we know about Will Amos’ second on-camera incident, as the Conservatives are complaining about a “safe working environment.”
  • Matt Gurney finds that one of the most galling aspects of the Auditor General’s report as on the inability to manage the inventory of the national stockpiles.
  • Heather Scoffield once again laments that federalism exists and that we don’t have a coherent national plan for re-opening the economy.

Odds and ends:

Want more Routine Proceedings? Become a patron and get exclusive new content.