The point was never about making the industry better......it was about Trudeau's gang of miscreants stopping the sharing of negative stories......it is about information control.....it is about a dictatorial cabal holding on with its fingernails.
Never assume malice when stupidity will suffice; all governments hate bad press, but C-18 (as Matt and Jen have posited) was more of a desperate attempt to force an awkward partnership between sticking it to Big Corporations and staunching the gaping wounds in Canadian journalism.
So was Trudeau stupid when he promised and delivered 600 million tax dollars to Canadian news corporations before the 2019 election?.....or, as he liked to joke, was he buying the media's cooperation....in light of the fact that the 6pm talking heads at CBC, CTV and Global did their best to whitewash the Trudeau regime, preferring to allocate their prime time to Trump bashing would suggest he wasn't joking. Canadian journalism is tanking nicely on its own, as the ROC clues into the eastern power center the media protects.
Gavin, you have already received replies from NotoriousSceptic and from John and I have considered both your comment and theirs.
Personally, I see merit in all your analyses but I offer yet another take: the actions by the current government in terms of Bill C-18 started from malice but the f'n idiots were so stupid as to make their "solution" totally impractical and any potential "success" was guaranteed to harm the industry much more - precisely the opposite of their stated goal, i.e. stupidly malicious.
I appreciate your comment, and while I do still assume stupidity, I will also note that the maxim "never assume malice when stupidity will suffice" (known colloquially as Hanlon's Razor) has a corollary known as Clarke's Corollary, which reads as follows:
"Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice".
Speaking for myself, I agree that the outcomes have been so damaging that it's tempting to look at C-18 and assume a cabal of snickering moustachioed villains is behind it, but it doesn't mean that the intent was evil. We've seen enough of this government's dysfunction to safely assume they aren't even competent enough to be "evil".
This is my take on a LOT of things. In many ways, believing there are evil genius forces out there working against us at least implies there *is* someone competent managing things. The alternative -- it's a collection of ambitious idiots and naive do-gooders all stumbling over each other (which I think is a lot closer to the truth) -- is scarier as it means nobody is running things and there is no capacity to do so.
Modern society reminds me of those photos almost everyone has of themselves as a toddler in the driver's seat, "driving" the car. Incapable state and civic institutions aren't going to suddenly become competent with a change of government (unless that's their focus and and almost never is). It appears to be a significant and global issue and I also think (at least in Canada) that's on us for continually asking those institutions to do too much and stretch too thin.
I am reminded of an accusation levelled many (I cannot recall how many) by I cannot remember whom against someone (again, I cannot ....): these guys couldn't successfully organize a punch-up in a brewery.
Agree to the extent that stupidity is always the first consideration for the Liberals. But maybe, just maybe, we need to allow for the possibility that the Liberals KNEW the ultimate outcome (Meta & Google were always telling them explicitly what was to happen) and THAT IS WHAT THEY WANTED ANYWAY. This basically fosters news concentrations even more within a handful of outlets, kills all independent media (those which are more likely to be critical of the government), and makes the survivors even more dependent on government handouts. Perfect recipe for 1984 a.k.a Trudeau's operating manual.
Like I said, we at least have to allow for this possibility because it just makes a lot of sense.
Would that there were a ten-lash penalty for the blend of arrogance, incompetence and intellectual complacency which gave rise to this legislation. Who wouldn't take grim satisfaction in seeing the normally invulnerable lobbyists and bureaucrats who conceived and helped push it over the finish line tied to the mast and receiving their richly deserved punishment?
Canada's mainstream media wouldn't cover the event, of course, but the video would go viral.
I think that it speaks volumes that here we are on Substack; politely commenting on articles, when we could be lowering our IQ’s watching the MSM news. No amount of money will save the MSM. Whether the MSM lies to us with malice or they are just wrong, they remind me of a Nietzsche quote: I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you.
Well, Carole, first off, we here value reading. Additionally, we all seem to value polite discourse, as well. We clearly have differences of opinion but those differences are typically handled with consideration by all parties. And, when the otherwise occurs, the "evil censor," Mr. G, steps in with a very polite recommendation to all that we do better - and we do!
Hmmm.... malice vs. wrong ... I vote for both and I very much like your reference to Nietzche.
As predicted in the article, the PM and his supporters are taking a victory lap. Count among those supporters CBC and CTV, as I read their reports about the agreement. Comments in CBC's heavily moderated forum are also largely congratulatory, though the thirteen 'Content deactivated' notices I scrolled past before I stopped bothering suggest the surviving comments may not constitute a representative sampling of public opinion. I'd hoped to submit a comment myself; but the opportunity to comment had already "closed" mere hours after the report was published, which is fairly typical for CBC, a reluctant host to guests who imagine real input into The Narrative is wanted.
As exercises in dishonest spin, both the government's and these mainstream outlets' 'reports' are all too representative, making me wonder again how much of value we'd actually be missing if Google joined Meta in pulling the plug on 'Canadian content' that takes this form. None of the issues and concerns raised in Mr. Menzis' article were thought worth mentioning by CTV or CBC. And how can you respect a Prime Minister who pretends the burning issue is "journalists getting paid for their work?" No one on the planet contests the proposition that journalists should be paid for their work. The real head-scratcher remains why a journalist who's on, say, the Toronto Star's or The Globe and Mail's payroll (or the CBC's) should be paid anything at all by Google.
The fact that the government has 'won' an agreement doesn't imply there's a satisfactory answer to that question. Google execs have apparently decided it's worth paying what amounts to loose change for them to get people with an overly developed sense of self-entitlement off their backs.
Honestly, I would’ve been fine if they countered Meta’s action by just blocking Facebook from Canada entirely. That flaming trash bag of a site has outlived its utility.
I have been on FB since 2007 ... and know all the pros and cons of the app ... and still think that it has added ... beyond measure ... to the quality of my sad (to-you) life.
And it still adds more (with a respectful nod to fellow Albertan Jen) ... almost every fucking day.
I found FB better post news ban. I think JOhn Kay?? Wrote an article about it. Much better niche content now. I do get some pro-Hama content leaking in.
What I fight hailorous about FB haters, none of them even bother to mention the Chicom brainwashing app Tik-Tok, which before our eyes has rotted Gen-Z
Why the “sad to you” comment? I make no judgement about your life because you use facebook. Many of my friends and family members do as well and I’m not disowning them or even thinking less of them for doing so. I use it as an easy birthday calendar. My issues with Facebook lie in their attempts to claim ownership of anything posted on their site, the weird patents they’ve applied for and reports that suggest they are conducting social experiments on people in order to monetize their product in new and strange ways often to the detriment of their users. The recent news that they are targetting children only really highlights the problem for me. I get that a company needs to make money, but they’ve already got loads and some of the things they do cross lines for me. I would not shed a tear if the government shut them down tomorrow.
My comment was ill-advised and dumb ... a hasty "throw-away" line because I assumed (incorrectly) that everybody who has such a strong "hate-on" for Facebook would also likely consider long-termers like me to be a tiny bit pitiable.
That suggests that that state of affairs is temporary. Perhaps, perhaps. In fact, I cannot get over the idea that it might well be Canada that is temporary in addition to the idea that being a free country is currently not working out as intended. Or, perhaps, not working out at all.
As for me, I see some merit in the idea that Canada might be temporary. I know that there is likely to be an election in about two years but I am uncertain as to whether the issues that cause me to feel Canada is on the brink will dissipate.
We can be philosophical about it and acknowledge that all things must eventually end, but in this case I was purposefully just focusing on the reply. Freedom can be subjective, but in this case I was referring to freedom of speech and freedom of the press. My flippant answer is, your freedoms will be ultimately decided by the whims of the Supreme Court, as the Charter was designed to provide for. If the Supreme Court agrees with a law to ban non-approved social media, it will be done. I'm sure they will dress it up in peace, order and good government.
I still think we should have a Line readers Meet-Up. Jen? Matt? First beer is on me.
I don't understand why Bell, Rogers should get any of this Google loot. I thought that part of the deal to have a government protected oligopoly was that they provide Canadian content -- such as news!!! I also don't understand why a taxpayer funded CBC would get any of the fund either. Hell, I don't understand why Google bothered giving any money. None of this makes any sense to me. But not much the governments have done this entire decade makes sense to me...
I still don't understand how the liberals have been so blind to the ripple effects of this that they don't have the strength or fortitude to change course. IF we had leadership in Ottawa, then a leader would go "oh, this really didn't go as planned, and we passed another bad piece of legislation - maybe we should repeal it." But of course Trudeau et al can't get over their egos enough to see the effects of their bad legislation. It's rather sad actually.
This was an important policy file at an important juncture to drop the ball on. Too important.
So, we are where we are. Traditional models for investigative and local journalism -- which are cost intensive and hard to do at a distance -- are breaking or broken.
I am not worried about the end of the business model that supports Postmedia or Torstar, particularly as they've already vacated a lot of important coverage. I am worried that we don't yet have a sustainable replacement for the kind of coverage that really drives accountability and civic engagement. We're creating a media environment with endless opinion (because opinion is inexpensive to produce) but less and less reliable reporting, which is not great for civil society.
I would sincerely request The Line to follow and report on this topic and all future developments in great detail. This is the only place where we get perspectives that we know are unbiased - especially on this topic.
So sad. So true. The zealots have once again demonstrated a total lack of reality as to either the news business or how the platforms function. Canadian news consumers and news producers are the big losers.
The funniest thing is now seeing Trudeau and inept ministers taking a photo op and a victory lap at this total failure. Another nail in the coffin. God help free journalism.
This legislation is a mess, and the industry is a mess. Money isn't going to fix the mess though. Technology is causing upheaval and it's changing the model. napster/spotify/siriusxm did it to the music industry. Uber did it to the taxi industry, Airbnb put the hotels on notice. A billion dollars doesn't save the industry, just lets it fight a little longer. This isn't the END of an industry, it's the birth of a new model.
But that's not the government's interest here. They want an industry beholden to them. So they're meting out the crumbs knowing that it won't "fix" the industry's woes, it will just stretch out the pain a little and make sure that for their last, miserable years, they won't go too hard at the PM, because his is the only hand continuing to feed them.
The point was never about making the industry better......it was about Trudeau's gang of miscreants stopping the sharing of negative stories......it is about information control.....it is about a dictatorial cabal holding on with its fingernails.
Never assume malice when stupidity will suffice; all governments hate bad press, but C-18 (as Matt and Jen have posited) was more of a desperate attempt to force an awkward partnership between sticking it to Big Corporations and staunching the gaping wounds in Canadian journalism.
So was Trudeau stupid when he promised and delivered 600 million tax dollars to Canadian news corporations before the 2019 election?.....or, as he liked to joke, was he buying the media's cooperation....in light of the fact that the 6pm talking heads at CBC, CTV and Global did their best to whitewash the Trudeau regime, preferring to allocate their prime time to Trump bashing would suggest he wasn't joking. Canadian journalism is tanking nicely on its own, as the ROC clues into the eastern power center the media protects.
Gavin, you have already received replies from NotoriousSceptic and from John and I have considered both your comment and theirs.
Personally, I see merit in all your analyses but I offer yet another take: the actions by the current government in terms of Bill C-18 started from malice but the f'n idiots were so stupid as to make their "solution" totally impractical and any potential "success" was guaranteed to harm the industry much more - precisely the opposite of their stated goal, i.e. stupidly malicious.
Hi Ken,
I appreciate your comment, and while I do still assume stupidity, I will also note that the maxim "never assume malice when stupidity will suffice" (known colloquially as Hanlon's Razor) has a corollary known as Clarke's Corollary, which reads as follows:
"Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice".
Speaking for myself, I agree that the outcomes have been so damaging that it's tempting to look at C-18 and assume a cabal of snickering moustachioed villains is behind it, but it doesn't mean that the intent was evil. We've seen enough of this government's dysfunction to safely assume they aren't even competent enough to be "evil".
Just very, very, stupid and desperate.
This is my take on a LOT of things. In many ways, believing there are evil genius forces out there working against us at least implies there *is* someone competent managing things. The alternative -- it's a collection of ambitious idiots and naive do-gooders all stumbling over each other (which I think is a lot closer to the truth) -- is scarier as it means nobody is running things and there is no capacity to do so.
Modern society reminds me of those photos almost everyone has of themselves as a toddler in the driver's seat, "driving" the car. Incapable state and civic institutions aren't going to suddenly become competent with a change of government (unless that's their focus and and almost never is). It appears to be a significant and global issue and I also think (at least in Canada) that's on us for continually asking those institutions to do too much and stretch too thin.
Gavin, I agree with you.
I am reminded of an accusation levelled many (I cannot recall how many) by I cannot remember whom against someone (again, I cannot ....): these guys couldn't successfully organize a punch-up in a brewery.
Meaning, of course, the current government.
Agree to the extent that stupidity is always the first consideration for the Liberals. But maybe, just maybe, we need to allow for the possibility that the Liberals KNEW the ultimate outcome (Meta & Google were always telling them explicitly what was to happen) and THAT IS WHAT THEY WANTED ANYWAY. This basically fosters news concentrations even more within a handful of outlets, kills all independent media (those which are more likely to be critical of the government), and makes the survivors even more dependent on government handouts. Perfect recipe for 1984 a.k.a Trudeau's operating manual.
Like I said, we at least have to allow for this possibility because it just makes a lot of sense.
Would that there were a ten-lash penalty for the blend of arrogance, incompetence and intellectual complacency which gave rise to this legislation. Who wouldn't take grim satisfaction in seeing the normally invulnerable lobbyists and bureaucrats who conceived and helped push it over the finish line tied to the mast and receiving their richly deserved punishment?
Canada's mainstream media wouldn't cover the event, of course, but the video would go viral.
I think that it speaks volumes that here we are on Substack; politely commenting on articles, when we could be lowering our IQ’s watching the MSM news. No amount of money will save the MSM. Whether the MSM lies to us with malice or they are just wrong, they remind me of a Nietzsche quote: I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you.
Well, Carole, first off, we here value reading. Additionally, we all seem to value polite discourse, as well. We clearly have differences of opinion but those differences are typically handled with consideration by all parties. And, when the otherwise occurs, the "evil censor," Mr. G, steps in with a very polite recommendation to all that we do better - and we do!
Hmmm.... malice vs. wrong ... I vote for both and I very much like your reference to Nietzche.
I recommend some soothing Vaughan Williams for taking the temperature down. Nietzsche: "Without music, life would be a mistake."
P.S. Edited to add: This should wake everybody up! Oh, to be on the verge of turning seventeen again...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlPZLRtQsig
As predicted in the article, the PM and his supporters are taking a victory lap. Count among those supporters CBC and CTV, as I read their reports about the agreement. Comments in CBC's heavily moderated forum are also largely congratulatory, though the thirteen 'Content deactivated' notices I scrolled past before I stopped bothering suggest the surviving comments may not constitute a representative sampling of public opinion. I'd hoped to submit a comment myself; but the opportunity to comment had already "closed" mere hours after the report was published, which is fairly typical for CBC, a reluctant host to guests who imagine real input into The Narrative is wanted.
As exercises in dishonest spin, both the government's and these mainstream outlets' 'reports' are all too representative, making me wonder again how much of value we'd actually be missing if Google joined Meta in pulling the plug on 'Canadian content' that takes this form. None of the issues and concerns raised in Mr. Menzis' article were thought worth mentioning by CTV or CBC. And how can you respect a Prime Minister who pretends the burning issue is "journalists getting paid for their work?" No one on the planet contests the proposition that journalists should be paid for their work. The real head-scratcher remains why a journalist who's on, say, the Toronto Star's or The Globe and Mail's payroll (or the CBC's) should be paid anything at all by Google.
The fact that the government has 'won' an agreement doesn't imply there's a satisfactory answer to that question. Google execs have apparently decided it's worth paying what amounts to loose change for them to get people with an overly developed sense of self-entitlement off their backs.
Honestly, I would’ve been fine if they countered Meta’s action by just blocking Facebook from Canada entirely. That flaming trash bag of a site has outlived its utility.
I have been on FB since 2007 ... and know all the pros and cons of the app ... and still think that it has added ... beyond measure ... to the quality of my sad (to-you) life.
And it still adds more (with a respectful nod to fellow Albertan Jen) ... almost every fucking day.
And that's my real name. Google away.
I found FB better post news ban. I think JOhn Kay?? Wrote an article about it. Much better niche content now. I do get some pro-Hama content leaking in.
What I fight hailorous about FB haters, none of them even bother to mention the Chicom brainwashing app Tik-Tok, which before our eyes has rotted Gen-Z
Y'all are obviously impaired ... which is not an issue, really ... been there ... done that ... always sincere but ... in the cold light of dawn ...
But this salad-speech ... sorry here ... makes you sound like drunken Katie Telford ... which saddens me as much as it delights me ...
Why the “sad to you” comment? I make no judgement about your life because you use facebook. Many of my friends and family members do as well and I’m not disowning them or even thinking less of them for doing so. I use it as an easy birthday calendar. My issues with Facebook lie in their attempts to claim ownership of anything posted on their site, the weird patents they’ve applied for and reports that suggest they are conducting social experiments on people in order to monetize their product in new and strange ways often to the detriment of their users. The recent news that they are targetting children only really highlights the problem for me. I get that a company needs to make money, but they’ve already got loads and some of the things they do cross lines for me. I would not shed a tear if the government shut them down tomorrow.
My comment was ill-advised and dumb ... a hasty "throw-away" line because I assumed (incorrectly) that everybody who has such a strong "hate-on" for Facebook would also likely consider long-termers like me to be a tiny bit pitiable.
Canada is still a free country. It doesn't work like that here. For now.
Kico, you end with "For now."
That suggests that that state of affairs is temporary. Perhaps, perhaps. In fact, I cannot get over the idea that it might well be Canada that is temporary in addition to the idea that being a free country is currently not working out as intended. Or, perhaps, not working out at all.
As for me, I see some merit in the idea that Canada might be temporary. I know that there is likely to be an election in about two years but I am uncertain as to whether the issues that cause me to feel Canada is on the brink will dissipate.
About that beer ...
We can be philosophical about it and acknowledge that all things must eventually end, but in this case I was purposefully just focusing on the reply. Freedom can be subjective, but in this case I was referring to freedom of speech and freedom of the press. My flippant answer is, your freedoms will be ultimately decided by the whims of the Supreme Court, as the Charter was designed to provide for. If the Supreme Court agrees with a law to ban non-approved social media, it will be done. I'm sure they will dress it up in peace, order and good government.
I still think we should have a Line readers Meet-Up. Jen? Matt? First beer is on me.
I don’t want to live in a country where a government can ban companies for disagreeing with their edicts and political priorities.
Buddy nailed it.
We somehow just have to "get the message out there" before Pascal starts doing more victory laps!
For Matt ...
TING ...
I am struggling to contain my emotions ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B01e7n4RzZc
That opening paragraph was letter-perfect.
But, you obviously took the time to "make it perfect" ... so, you already know. :)
I don't understand why Bell, Rogers should get any of this Google loot. I thought that part of the deal to have a government protected oligopoly was that they provide Canadian content -- such as news!!! I also don't understand why a taxpayer funded CBC would get any of the fund either. Hell, I don't understand why Google bothered giving any money. None of this makes any sense to me. But not much the governments have done this entire decade makes sense to me...
I still don't understand how the liberals have been so blind to the ripple effects of this that they don't have the strength or fortitude to change course. IF we had leadership in Ottawa, then a leader would go "oh, this really didn't go as planned, and we passed another bad piece of legislation - maybe we should repeal it." But of course Trudeau et al can't get over their egos enough to see the effects of their bad legislation. It's rather sad actually.
CBC today (PnP) " Can this clear up the mess created by Pablo Rodriguez?"
You go CBC!!!!!
This was an important policy file at an important juncture to drop the ball on. Too important.
So, we are where we are. Traditional models for investigative and local journalism -- which are cost intensive and hard to do at a distance -- are breaking or broken.
I am not worried about the end of the business model that supports Postmedia or Torstar, particularly as they've already vacated a lot of important coverage. I am worried that we don't yet have a sustainable replacement for the kind of coverage that really drives accountability and civic engagement. We're creating a media environment with endless opinion (because opinion is inexpensive to produce) but less and less reliable reporting, which is not great for civil society.
I would sincerely request The Line to follow and report on this topic and all future developments in great detail. This is the only place where we get perspectives that we know are unbiased - especially on this topic.
So sad. So true. The zealots have once again demonstrated a total lack of reality as to either the news business or how the platforms function. Canadian news consumers and news producers are the big losers.
The funniest thing is now seeing Trudeau and inept ministers taking a photo op and a victory lap at this total failure. Another nail in the coffin. God help free journalism.
This legislation is a mess, and the industry is a mess. Money isn't going to fix the mess though. Technology is causing upheaval and it's changing the model. napster/spotify/siriusxm did it to the music industry. Uber did it to the taxi industry, Airbnb put the hotels on notice. A billion dollars doesn't save the industry, just lets it fight a little longer. This isn't the END of an industry, it's the birth of a new model.
But that's not the government's interest here. They want an industry beholden to them. So they're meting out the crumbs knowing that it won't "fix" the industry's woes, it will just stretch out the pain a little and make sure that for their last, miserable years, they won't go too hard at the PM, because his is the only hand continuing to feed them.