(Post Title Censored)

Indeed:

Recently released documents show that although the federal government is sparing in its requests to social media companies to take down comments, such requests can be abused to censor news coverage that paints the government in a bad light. This is especially concerning given the Liberals’ attempts to gain more control over the internet.

(Sidebar: these requests.)

Details about Ottawa’s takedown requests were revealed in a 159-page document, which was prepared in response to a written question on the House of Commons order paper by Conservative MP Dean Allison. The document shows that, between Jan. 1, 2020 and Feb. 7, 2023, while most departments refrained from making requests, a handful of government agencies asked that content be taken down for questionable reasons, such as “misinformation,” “offensive language” and basic criticism.

The most egregious request was made by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, an administrative tribunal that decides who to let into the country and who to kick out. On Sept. 27, 2021, the board asked Facebook and Twitter to remove links to a Toronto Sun story “containing serious errors of fact risking undermining public confidence in the independence of the board as well as the integrity of the refugee determination system.” The request was denied.

(Sidebar: ahem.) 

I really hope people don't think that Bill C-11 ends at kitten videos on Youtube. 

 

Further, does @pablorodriguez know how Bill C-11 works? The payment obligations of companies like Youtube come from a different provision than the user content regulation provision. The claims of a loophole in the Senate fix is disinformation. 2/3
https://t.co/sBEhd3XH2K

— Michael Geist (@mgeist) May 1, 2023

To wit:

(Sidebar: first of all, let us not pretend that Bill C-11 or its future companion bills are about protecting Canadian content no one wants or about stopping whatever offensive bug-bear allegedly threatens to unravel the fabric of Canadian society. Let's stop that now. We know what it's really about.)

In attempting to regulate an internet that grew up withoutregulation, Ottawa’s new Online Streaming Act, the erstwhile Bill C-11, has revealed a rift at the core of Canada’s artistic communities. Artists and workers in the sub-sectors that come together to make all this content have starkly different opinions on how policy should adapt to the streaming shift.

It’s not even yet clear what forcing streamers to support Canadian content would look like – that’s up to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). Even that process will probably take another few years. But the passing of Bill C-11 is still sending fears flying over what could happen. It’s very difficult to find someone truly happy with the entire shape of the new legislation.

Some artists’ groups argue that the legislation’s language doesn’t go far enough in forcing American giants to support Canadian content as much as domestic counterparts. Others insist the new law opens the door to massive overreach, potentially creating upheaval for creators on YouTube and TikTok trying to get their videos to the masses. Many fear the services will be forced to rejig algorithms to disproportionately surface Canadian content here in ways that could have repercussions, perhaps entirely unintentionally, for how their content is seen elsewhere.

(Sidebar: it's not up to the Americans to support content even Canadians don't want.)

Domestic and foreign interest groups have spent much of the past few years working Ottawa’s backrooms and trotting spokespeople before federal committees to urge lawmakers to either strengthen or water down the new law. It seemed like for every group such as the Writers Guild of Canada that showed up to a Senate committee arguing that without cultural protections, “we are at risk of losing an entire generation of storytellers,” you could find an American streamer such as Netflix insisting that it’s already investing plenty in Canada and shouldn’t be beholden to a more “rigid” investment model.

The democratization of content online has prompted perhaps the thorniest of debates over the new streaming bill. Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez expressly said the legislation would not apply to user-generated content, such as everyday people’s TikTok videos. Yet when the Senate put forward an amendment deliberately clarifying this, the minister chose to quash it. Senators decided not to fight this change, taking the government at its word.

And yet the back-and-forth resulted in profound confusion. Even on Parliament Hill, both the author and Liberal-appointed independent Senator David Adams Richards and Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre have argued that the legislation’s language opens up the floodgates for algorithmic manipulation – a level of interference they insist would be no less than full-on government censorship.

 

And here we are.