It’s not a law.
It’s a component in a system that includes laws.
So are the chairs that members of Canada’s parliament sit in. Those chairs still aren’t laws.
Cite me an example of someone being punished in the Canadian legal system for disobeying a non-binding parliamentary motion. If you can’t do that, cite the specific mechanism you think that this could lead to someone being punished because of this non-binding parliamentary motion.
Are you concerned because of your opinion that you should be worried? Or do you have evidence that there is something dangerous?
If I told you that your car was going to explode tomorrow while driving it, but if you paid me $10, I could prevent it for you, would you trust my opinion? Or would you want specifics? I’m not a car mechanic. I’m just some random guy on the internet. If opinions are sufficient enough to arrive at conclusions, I’ll PM you my cashapp info.
No easy answers, but you can start with this article:
That article gave zero evidence that a non-binding parliamentary motion has any legal force or effect that anyone should be worried about. If you think I missed it, feel free to quote where the article says that a non-binding parliamentary motion can be used as an enforceable law. All I see in that article is a “slippery slope” argument that Parliament might pass actual laws.
Are you operating under the assumption that a non-binding parliamentary motion is the same thing as a law? If you are, I can tell you that you should stop thinking that. They aren’t laws. Full stop. End of discussion.
It’s a non-binding motion. I’ll give you a hint, that first term “non-binding” is REALLY important in how seriously you should take it. Sure, you can disagree with it. But the motion… has no effect. Nothing can be enforced off that motion. It’s “non-binding”. That means the motion has no power to force any action or requirements on anyone.
I would take that article with a grain of salt. Wired has strong libertarian, tech-messiah roots, and I see the influence of that pretty quickly. It’s largely trying to shift the blame away from the companies, and say that it’s the laws that causing all the problems. Facebook and Google want to promote themselves as platforms or mediums, not hosts of content. To a large degree they were born out of the classical liberal ideology that just allowing people to spread any and all ideas would have a net positive effect. And maybe it does have a net positive effect, but they don’t want to acknowledge their role in the reproduction and spreading of harmful ideas.
Part of the issue to me with the tech companies is that we’ve essentially ceded control of these new mediums to corporations that just want to make money. Making money is an okay goal for a corporation, but we shouldn’t organize our society around what is profitable for specific companies. The key word in that sentence being “specific”. I’m not opposed to companies making money, I’m opposed to the rules of our society being bent for the profit of specific ones. Just like I don’t think that our gun control laws should be constructed around what is profitable for gun manufacturers, or free speech laws should be constructed around what is profitable for newspapers. The rules of society should be about the health and well-being of the society as a whole.
Who makes the rules that control what videos can be on Youtube, and how those videos are promoted and monetized? Well, right now it’s basically entirely up to Youtube as long as the videos aren’t pornography. Transparency of Youtube’s process would be valuable. For one, it would remove any suspicions of it being unfair and prove it is or isn’t fair. It would also give the rest of us valuable information in determining whether or not Youtube does adhere to the rules of how we do want to construct our society.
Right now, Youtube demonetizes most things that approach controversial topics and express minority opinions. For example, I’ve seen some data that is pretty damning that they are automatically flagging, demonetizing (and thus making it harder to find) atheist content. Why? Because atheist content makes advertisers uncomfortable. It’s not that advertisers want to promote religion, but that they don’t want anti-religious things associated with their products in a mostly religious society. I’m not talking about offensively or aggressively atheist content either. If you put “atheism” in the title, description, and tags, the odds that it is automatically flagged for demonetization go up significantly. It isn’t being done as part of a review process. It is automatic.
Sidenote: it also happens with any video with Nazi imagery, even those which are historically accurate and denouncing Nazis. You just have to blur the swastikas to get it past the automated system.
I think there is a case to be made that Youtube should be allowed to determine the best method for it to make money, but as long as it is the vastly dominant form of video sharing on the internet, and that sharing video content without Youtube immediately puts people at a massive disadvantage, I find the claim of it just being a business and platform to be disingenuous. Since there effectively is no marketplace of video sharing platforms, Youtube either needs to operate as a public utility, or it needs to have its monopoly broken up.
And I keep saying Youtube, but you could change this to Facebook, and other than the specific references to video, the ideas remain the same.
As long as internet platforms have the SCOPE of a public utility, I think the public has a right to insist on regulation of the content. If a company wants to argue that it should control it’s profit making venture, then it must operate within a marketplace of competitors. As long as these companies have effective monopolies though, I will remain unconvinced that the public doesn’t have an interest in having a say in how they’re regulated.
Mr. Horse has posted several threads on this already.
The responses look the same because nothing has changed.
It was merely a motion and never a law.
That looks like a pattern I’m no longer interested in.
Icehorse - I’ll read one more post from you. If you don’t give a shit about me and my responses to your dialogue (ie, you feel that talking to me is a waste of your time) then feel free to disregard these instructions. Otherwise, I want one of two things.
1) Show me evidence of something that has happened to threaten free speech DIRECTLY from Motion 103. It was passed two years ago. If the motion was a problem, odds are something would have happened we could point to. I don’t want to hear a hypothetical slippery slope argument. Give me a causal chain that is at least plausible and can be easy to understand. Like someone being taken to court and M-103 being part of the prosecutor or plaintiff’s case (like actually mentioned in their court filings). An article from an opponent of the motion is not sufficient, but someone actually attempting to use the motion against someone in a legally relevant way.
2) Say that it is something that concerns you, but you now believe that the non-binding motion has no legal effect.
If you don’t give a shit about me, then feel free to get huffy and hold onto your stance. It will then be sufficient evidence for me going forward.
I find it telling that there are more THREADS about a non-binding motion that has no legal power in Canada than there are POSTS about the abuse of government power to try to silence Kathy Griffin on this entire forum.
I find pretty much everyone’s self-identification of being a “free speech advocate” to be lie at this point.