# Trudeau's plan to censor the internet



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Trudeau gave $700 million to "approved" media. Now they want to decide what is considered disinformation.

"To continue the fight against disinformation and hate speech, the Government of Canada is harnessing the tools at its disposal to mitigate these actions online, including through the Digital Citizen Initiative, which was launched in 2019. This initiative supports democracy and social cohesion in Canada by promoting an information ecosystem that is trusted, diverse, safe, and free from disinformation and illegal content." 









Statement by the Prime Minister on the International Day of Democracy


“Today, we join our international partners to celebrate the International Day of Democracy. We recognize that the respect for freedoms, human rights, and the rule of law are essential for democracies to thrive. We also take this opportunity to remind ourselves of our shared responsibility to...




pm.gc.ca


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Prairie Guy said:


> Trudeau gave $700 million to "approved" media. Now they want to decide what is considered disinformation.
> 
> "To continue the fight against disinformation and hate speech, the Government of Canada is harnessing the tools at its disposal to mitigate these actions online, including through the Digital Citizen Initiative, which was launched in 2019. This initiative supports democracy and social cohesion in Canada by promoting an information ecosystem that is trusted, diverse, safe, and free from disinformation and illegal content."
> 
> ...


Never mind that he's destroying trust, attacking diversity, and spreading disinformation.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Good, it is about time. There is no need for disinformation and it only hurts discussion and debate in a democracy.

I don't know how anyone could feel comfortable defending disinformation, illegal content and hate speech.

If people are worried they may get into trouble for what they are saying, maybe they should examine what they are saying.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Good, it is about time. There is no need for disinformation and it only hurts discussion and debate in a democracy.
> 
> I don't know how anyone could feel comfortable defending disinformation, illegal content and hate speech.
> 
> If people are worried they may get into trouble for what they are saying, maybe they should examine what they are saying.


The problem is who gets to determine what is "disinformation".

For one, we know Trudeau lies and spreads disinformation himself.
I do not want to give him the power to determine what is approved and what is not.

As raised previously, China used "disinformation" laws to silence the people trying to raise warnings of COVID19.
People die when governments censor information they don't want out there.

Also, remember some people think that factual statements should be prosecuted as hate speech.
"It's okay to be white" was deemed "hate speech" by some, it's insane.


I don't want a world where Trudeau and Trump can determine what we're allowed to say, where clear factual statements are criminalized.

These laws aren't really about "disinformation" they're about control.
Hate speech laws aren't about controlling hate, they're about controlling the discussion, and removing the ability to discuss the issue. It's why free speech is so important.

There's a great human rights tribunal case in the UK, where a transwoman wore a shirt saying she was still male.

"Ms Harrison told the tribunal: “The process of having surgery or hormone treatment cannot ultimately transform your sex. Every cell in my body has male chromosomes. I have a prostate. These things cannot be completely deconstructed. It is not possible to be biologically female. But that does not mean I can’t live a fulfilling life being treated as a woman.”"

That's insane, imagine being a transwoman, being hauled before a human rights tribunal, for DARING to claim that you're male. How sharing your own factual, medical, genetic, realtity and identity is a "hate crime" is beyond me.



The funny thing is, people don't care, they LIKE disinformation.
Apparently Trudeau is polling higher, now that he shut down investigations to yet another ethics investigation.
That's the guy you want determining what can and can't be said? The guy with a proven history of lying? 
The one who had government officials saying "you don't need masks", and "travel bans don't work" months ago.

I'm glad we had dissenters spread "disinformation", like.
1. There is a pandemic.
2. masks help.
3. Travel bans work.

I agree sags, I don't see how anyone can be comfortable defending disinformation, because by supporting Trudeaus gag laws and bribes, that's EXACTLY what you're doing


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Sags, just a quick question, do you think that in the future disinformation laws will be used to prosecute or silence people like Trudeau and Tam who have spread disinformation on COVID19?

If the laws would not have stopped high profile and influential people like Trudeau and Dr Tam from spreading disinformation on COVID19, what good are they?

I think it's self evident that the real goal is not to stop disinformation. It's to further empower the elites to control the narrative.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Without using the context of systemic racism as a backdrop....what does the phrase "it's okay to be white" allude to ?

As for Trudeau, Dr. Tam and the other malarky........I think Canadians are well informed and have decided that it isn't important to them.

I think the Conservatives have called for RCMP investigations, inquiries, and resignations a few too many times and Canadians don't listen to them anymore.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

sags said:


> Without the context of systemic racism as a backdrop....what sense does the phrase "it's okay to be white" make ?


Of course you won't answer Matt's well thought out posts. As soon as you're confronted with a valid argument you run away or deflect.

Who determines is misinformation and what isn't?


----------



## Spudd (Oct 11, 2011)

Did any of you read the linked article and its linked initiatives? The Digital Citizen Initiative says that it is creating educational materials to encourage Canadians to think critically and counter misinformation via education. 

It says nothing about censoring disinformation.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Prairie Guy said:


> Of course you won't answer Matt's well thought out posts. As soon as you're confronted with a valid argument you run away or deflect.
> 
> Who determines is misinformation and what isn't?


Society.........not the perpetrators of it.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Education is important, but in Canada (unlike the US) hate speech is a crime and it should remain as such.

The courts already decide when someone is guilty of hate speech and that possibility is what upsets the purveyors of hate speech so much.

They don't want to be controlled or held accountable for their actions and harbour the ultimate goal of repealing said law.





__





Criminal Code


Federal laws of Canada




laws-lois.justice.gc.ca


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

Spudd said:


> Did any of you read the linked article and its linked initiatives? The Digital Citizen Initiative says that it is creating educational materials to encourage Canadians to think critically and counter misinformation via education.
> 
> It says nothing about censoring disinformation.


Does that surprise you? People who feed on spreading disinformation aren't likely to actually read the articles. Rather than get information from different sources and thinking critically, they'd prefer sticking to their opinions as truth and reject anything that contradicts, or minimizes the importance of their information. In their minds, that's censoring their "truth".


----------



## Spudd (Oct 11, 2011)

bgc_fan said:


> Does that surprise you? People who feed on spreading disinformation aren't likely to actually read the articles. Rather than get information from different sources and thinking critically, they'd prefer sticking to their opinions as truth and reject anything that contradicts, or minimizes the importance of their information. In their minds, that's censoring their "truth".


My attempt was to educate people who might believe what they're saying rather than thinking critically and digging into the source material. In other words, I was trying to be a good digital citizen.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

bgc_fan said:


> Does that surprise you? People who feed on spreading disinformation aren't likely to actually read the articles. Rather than get information from different sources and thinking critically, they'd prefer sticking to their opinions as truth and reject anything that contradicts, or minimizes the importance of their information. In their minds, that's censoring their "truth".


"The federal government is considering introducing legislation to make it an offence to knowingly spread misinformation that could harm people", says Privy Council President Dominic LeBlanc.

Quotes from the people who actually put together legislation would seem rather relevant.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Spudd said:


> My attempt was to educate people who might believe what they're saying rather than thinking critically and digging into the source material. In other words, I was trying to be a good digital citizen.


That is good and the government can do both........educate and prosecute.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Good move by the government to educate people about this stuff. In the age of social media, there's a serious problem of disinformation and junky conspiracy theory sources.

This is one of these unfortunate trends that has been bolstered by social media. But it's also encouraged by some political factions; the radicals.

Left unchecked (like it is in the US) these forces can bring an end to democracy and western values entirely.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> My attempt was to educate people who might believe what they're saying rather than thinking critically and digging into the source material. In other words, I was trying to be a good digital citizen.


I get it. I'm just saying that it's a lost cause for some people.



MrMatt said:


> "The federal government is considering introducing legislation to make it an offence to knowingly spread misinformation that could harm people", says Privy Council President Dominic LeBlanc.
> 
> Quotes from the people who actually put together legislation would seem rather relevant.


That's nice. So you want to actually point to the legislation? Because there is a key word *considering*. All I see is this initiative that promotes education and critical thinking.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The disinformation has gotten out of hand and is extremely dangerous.

People were getting phone calls, texts and emails telling them not to evacuate from the wildfires in California. People died because they didn't evacuate.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

bgc_fan said:


> I get it. I'm just saying that it's a lost cause for some people.
> 
> 
> 
> That's nice. So you want to actually point to the legislation? Because there is a key word *considering*. All I see is this initiative that promotes education and critical thinking.


Interesting, I saw a few million dollars on education, and hundreds of millions in bribes to big media companies.
From a government with a known history of lying and spreading disinformation.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> Interesting, I saw a few million dollars on education, and hundreds of millions in bribes to big media companies.
> From a government with a known history of lying and spreading disinformation.


And? Where is the legislation that was the concern where you took this quote?
"The federal government is considering introducing legislation to make it an offence to knowingly spread misinformation that could harm people", says Privy Council President Dominic LeBlanc.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

JT has a lot of nerve ...I hope some of our opposition will stand up & set him straight if parliament ever sits again.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Eder said:


> JT has a lot of nerve ...I hope some of our opposition will stand up & set him straight if parliament ever sits again.


Why do you have a problem with the government fighting online disinformation?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Why do you have a problem with the government fighting online disinformation?


They're not fighting disinformation, they're ENGAGING IN IT!!

So I trust them to fight "disinformation" about as much as I trust the phone company to lower my cell phone bill.

Whatever powers they use won't be used to fight disinformation, they'll be used to silence opposing voices. They'll simply claim the opposing voices are spreading "disinformation", and deprived of their right to free expression, they won't even be able to defend themselves against the accusation.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Just to be clear, even if our government didn't actively engage in disinformation, I still wouldn't trust them to decide what what is valid and what is not.
Our PM has a documented history of lies and ethical violations, I don't want him deciding what's "true"


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

james4beach said:


> Why do you have a problem with the government fighting online disinformation?


Because it contradicts their world view.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> They're not fighting disinformation, they're ENGAGING IN IT!!
> 
> So I trust them to fight "disinformation" about as much as I trust the phone company to lower my cell phone bill.
> 
> Whatever powers they use won't be used to fight disinformation, they'll be used to silence opposing voices. They'll simply claim the opposing voices are spreading "disinformation", and deprived of their right to free expression, they won't even be able to defend themselves against the accusation.


That's sounds very paranoid to me.

We know there is a problem with disinformation on social media. It has emerged as a significant force and our society isn't handling it well.

This isn't about silencing legitimate voices. This is about ensuring that nutcases and unhinged propaganda outlets can't manipulate society and overthrow democracy.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Let's remember something about MrMatt, Prairie Guy, and Eder.

*They don't really believe in freedom of speech*. We know this because when Americans spoke out in opposition to the government (BLM / protesters / young liberals), the above characters supported the idea that those people should be suppressed, arrested, and stopped with force. They repeatedly posted propaganda to paint legitimate protesters are violent rioters, an attempt to silence voices they don't like.

Beware of calls like what you're hearing from MrMatt, Prairie Guy, and Eder. They only support voices which align with their ideology.

They pretend to want freedom of speech but they will never support it when it opposes their ideology. They are not thinking about it from the standpoint of "disinformation". Rather, they want to hear voices from their own ideology and they don't want to hear (or even give a platform) to people with opposing ideology.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

James...personal insults ruin this discussion...if you trust Justin to burn the books that need burning that is your choice...but I believe I also have a choice...for now.

Oh heres one of your hero's you think should not be arrested etc...since you changed the subject...









BLM ‘activists’ celebrated as Trump supporter was killed: Devine


It’s spine-chilling to hear activists in Portland cheering about the cold-blooded murder of a Trump supporter Saturday night. “I am not sad that a f–king fascist died tonight,” a woman shouts…




nypost.com


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Let's remember something about MrMatt, Prairie Guy, and Eder.
> 
> *They don't really believe in freedom of speech*. We know this because when Americans spoke out in opposition to the government (BLM / protesters / young liberals), the above characters supported the idea that those people should be suppressed, arrested, and stopped with force. They repeatedly posted propaganda to paint legitimate protesters are violent rioters, an attempt to silence voices they don't like.
> 
> ...


Sorry, absolutely not true.
I want free speech, I want to hear opposing views, I'm actually curious how people come to the conclusions they have, and you only get there through discussion.

I've been very clear, and consistent, I'm for protests, I'm against riots.
But you seem to want to conflate the two.

Yes, beware the siren call of opposing opinions.
I do agree that disinformation is a problem, I simply don't trust anyone enough to give them the power to decide what is information and what is disinformation. My solution is to not censor. I'd rather have disagreeable opinions out in the open, to be shared or debated, than to risk silencing legitimate dissent.

You're so afraid of dissenting opinions that even the factual truth can be considered hateful, and worthy of harrassment or prosecution.


Finally I've asked, repeatedly for intelligent and competent "left leaning" people to read and learn from, but there doesn't seem to be much there.
Where is the intelligent informed Anti-Jordan Peterson? or anti-Thomas Sowell?


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Before you call for a new law, imagine it being used against you. Still think it's a good idea? This is not a fanciful objection. Imagine you are an American liberal, crying out for the government to stamp out hate speech. Now put Trump in charge of deciding whose opinion gets stamped out. Still oppose free speech?


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> Before you call for a new law, imagine it being used against you.


This is a helpful exercise. Think about what happens with no restrictions on disinformation and conspiracy theory peddling. A total free-for-all.

Let's say it's 2025 and extreme leftism is on the rise (let's pretend for the sake of argument that they somehow find money and are able to afford marketing and lobbying).

So these scary extreme leftists take to social media. Using their mastery of social media platforms, conspiracy theories, disinformation, and algorithm manipulation, the extreme leftists start spreading their Soviet-style propaganda. They are convincing huge numbers of impressionable young Canadians that we need to seize all wealth from the rich, etc.

That's what you can get with unchecked disinformation. Do you expect me to believe that the conservatives of today will happily sit by and say, YES that is their right, don't censor or stop the extreme leftists from using Soviet-style propaganda to plant themselves in power? Protect free speech ... let the extreme leftists say whatever they want, no matter how much they lie and twist the truth.

We all know that no conservatives would support that. Stopping disinformation and conspiracy theory nonsense is in all of our best interests and that's what the government of today is trying to do, so that we don't go down that slippery slope.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> Finally I've asked, repeatedly for intelligent and competent "left leaning" people to read and learn from, but there doesn't seem to be much there.
> Where is the intelligent informed Anti-Jordan Peterson? or anti-Thomas Sowell?


Considering that you still won't explain how these initiatives to help Canadians deal with misinformation, including critical thinking is equal to censorship, I think you're overestimating your abilities.



Rusty O'Toole said:


> Before you call for a new law, imagine it being used against you. Still think it's a good idea? This is not a fanciful objection. Imagine you are an American liberal, crying out for the government to stamp out hate speech. Now put Trump in charge of deciding whose opinion gets stamped out. Still oppose free speech?


Thanks for demonstrating the need for the initiative. Did you read the clickbait title and assume that the Liberals were putting censorship measures on the internet? Or are you actually trying to start a conversation? You'll note that nothing in the initiative actually addresses the misinformation itself, only provide measures so that people develop some critical thinking skills. So if there are non-mainstream outlets you like that contradict the government's view, they will still exist. So where is the censorship?


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

james4beach said:


> This is a helpful exercise. Think about what happens with no restrictions on disinformation and conspiracy theory peddling. A total free-for-all.
> 
> Let's say it's 2025 and extreme leftism is on the rise (let's pretend for the sake of argument that they somehow find money and are able to afford marketing and lobbying).
> 
> ...


You just described the situation we have now. I say let the leftists spread all the bullshit they want. It is already backfiring on them. More and more people are getting wise to them which is why they are so desperate for more censorship. The most damaging critics of the democrats, are ex democrats who have reluctantly concluded that the party they supported all their lives has turned against them and become intolerable and insane.
They always start off with some high minded baloney about obscenity or hate speech but as soon as they get the power it is political censorship all the way. And too much is never enough. Before you know it you can lose your job or be jailed for making a joke. We are almost there now.
Read this on self censorship in the US








Self-censorship in the US


The US nominally enshrines the most far-reaching freedom of speech, thanks to the First Amendment of the Constitution. Yet the average number of Americans who self-censor is slowly beginning to approximate that of Germany, where... "Nearly two-thirds of




www.gatestoneinstitute.org





"A democratic society of fearful citizens who dare not speak about what is on their minds -- often important issues of their time -- is doomed to succumb to the will of those who bully the hardest and shout the loudest. "


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

If you look back over history you can see there is such a thing as progress. People's ideas change, sometimes for the better. Even though the change can be slow and painful with many false starts and blind alleys. If you shut down freedom of speech you effectively stop progress or at least slow it to a crawl. There are many examples in history of countries with powerful governments that suppressed all dissent that eventually became living fossils.


----------



## twa2w (Mar 5, 2016)

I see parallels to the early stages of Nazi Germany and the Soviet union in this.

By the way we do not have freedom of speech in Canada - we have freedom of expression.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

bgc_fan said:


> Considering that you still won't explain how these initiatives to help Canadians deal with misinformation, including critical thinking is equal to censorship, I think you're overestimating your abilities.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for demonstrating the need for the initiative. Did you read the clickbait title and assume that the Liberals were putting censorship measures on the internet? Or are you actually trying to start a conversation? You'll note that nothing in the initiative actually addresses the misinformation itself, only provide measures so that people develop some critical thinking skills. So if there are non-mainstream outlets you like that contradict the government's view, they will still exist. So where is the censorship?


Sorry, I thought it was self evident.

When media companies get hundreds of millions of dollars from the government, they are likely to report more favourably on the governments activity.
When the government actually deems certain facts "hate speech", and prosecutes them, that is a restriction on speech. I've even listed situations where hate speech laws were used to silence discussion and debate on important topics today.

While these specific measures on disinformation sound like a good idea
1. I don't know what they're actually going to say.
2. I find it doubtful that they will be effective, since they're being promoted by people spreading disinformation.
3. I don't trust the government to determine what is true and false.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

It comes down to one thing. If you believe government and the mainstream media are infallible fountains of truth and wisdom and anyone who differs from them in the slightest is wrong and evil then it makes sense to ban free speech. On the other hand if you believe human beings are fallible and sometimes self interested it makes sense to allow differences of opinion, and the publishing of inconvenient facts.

The Bible says the truth will set you free. Nowhere does it say it will make you happy.

As to whether people can be trusted to sort out the truth from lies people lie all the time and we all develop a critical faculty, if we are allowed to. If you only allow one opinion to be published and punish anyone who believes otherwise you will find errors impossible to detect or correct until it is too late.

There are plenty of examples of censorious dictatorships. They never end well.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> There are plenty of examples of censorious dictatorships. They never end well.


But this time they're picking a GOOD dictator!


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Substitute Censorship for Socialism


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> Substitute Censorship for Socialism


Not really, they're working on both.

But banning "hate facts" seems almost ingenious on the censorship front. They actually have public support on banning FACTS. Not even disinformation, just stuff they don't like.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

"I heart J K Rowling billboard taken down in Vancouver"








“I ‘heart’ JK Rowling” billboard in Vancouver taken down after only a day


The billboard was vandalized and covered with splattered paint, and by Saturday afternoon, it was gone.




tnc.news





How is liking one of the world's most popular authors hate speech? It's not, but it is politically incorrect according to "woke" leftists, therefore this opinion must be suppressed.

I would like to say this is where you end up when you start censoring opinions but it isn't, it's just the beginning. The irony is that the leftists who are now trying to suppress Rowling's latest book, are the same ones who defended her against accusations of devil worship by right wing fundamentalists 20 years ago. The lesson is there is no limit to what someone somewhere finds offensive and wants censored, and once you start there is no end to it.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> "I heart J K Rowling billboard taken down in Vancouver"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, this all becomes easier if being factually correct isn't a defence.

That's how you get to calling Blair White transphobic, because she doesn't believe it is appropriate to engage in the genital mutilation minors, or use of puberty blockers by children.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

If someone is charged for distributing hate speech, they have recourse in the justice system, where they are presumed innocent until conviction.

The prosecutors have to prove it was the accused intention to spread what the court would consider as "hate speech."

It is a high bar for prosecutors, and unlike "he said.....she said" types of cases, the alleged "hate speech" itself will be known to the courts.

It either is....or it isn't hate speech, and the person knew it or didn't know it, and intended or didn't intend to distribute it.

It seems a pretty clear path for the justice system upon which to be able to base "just" decisions.

The comparison to fascist states which depress honest free speech is irrelevant unless one believes the court system will also be corrupted.

If an individual "knowingly intends to distribute hate speech" ......they may have something to worry about.

For everyone else, I doubt there are civil liberty concerns.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> If someone is charged for distributing hate speech, they have recourse in the justice system, where they are presumed innocent until conviction.
> 
> The prosecutors have to prove the accused intented to spread "hate speech."
> 
> ...


I'm sorry, but you're wrong.
You're brought before a human rights tribunal, they don't have to prove intent.
Also the chilling effect is a problem, Jordan Peterson was issued with orders from U of T, despite not actually committing any of the offenses he was alleged to do.
Look at the Lindsay Shepard case.

It's not just the law, it's the whole systematic attack on free speech.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Whenever Peterson invoked the fact that he was a professor employed by the University of Toronto, he was using their reputation to bolster his own credibility.

Any employer has the right to limit someone from misrepresenting them to the public. That is why the human rights tribunal was involved.

You seem to have the opinion there should be no rules. That anyone can say anything and there should be no consequences.

I doubt many Canadians would support that concept.


----------



## calm (May 26, 2020)

I think that the military is going to be patrolling the streets of North America in early spring and I also think that access to any/all internet URL's located outside North America will require a licence of some type. (All Permissible websites will be located on servers located in North America.)
In addition, no video content will be allowed unless you own a broadcast licence.

Censorship:

There was a Feature story in the NYT ......

These are 922 of the most powerful people in America.
Faces of Power: 80% Are White, Even as U.S. Becomes More Diverse
----
Comment:

"On the other hand, while being obsessive about tracking down Hispanic ethnicity among the 922 Most Powerful Americans, the Times has no interest — zero, nada — in counting Jewish ethnicity among the most powerful. Counting powerful white people is proof of the concept of White Privilege, but since Jewish Privilege is not a concept, why would anyone want to look for or against evidence for a concept that doesn’t exist?"

By Denise Lu, Jon Huang, Ashwin Seshagiri, Haeyoun Park and Troy Griggs 
September 09, 2020








Faces of Power: 80% Are White, Even as U.S. Becomes More Diverse (Published 2020)


See the 922 faces of power behind Hollywood, the justice system, big businesses and more; 180 of them identify as Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, multiracial or otherwise a person of color.



www.nytimes.com


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> Sorry, I thought it was self evident.
> 
> When media companies get hundreds of millions of dollars from the government, they are likely to report more favourably on the governments activity.
> When the government actually deems certain facts "hate speech", and prosecutes them, that is a restriction on speech. I've even listed situations where hate speech laws were used to silence discussion and debate on important topics today.
> ...


Again, did you read the initiative at all? Because it doesn't sound like it. It sounds like a generic rant on censorship.
1. There's nothing about prosecuting facts as hate speech.
2. They aren't directly funding any media sources. Funds are going to support non-profits and academic institutions for research. The closest to funding media sources is the Canada Periodical Fund which only provides funds to organizations to promote periodicals.

In other words, everything that you've said above has no bearing on the initiative.

If your concern is about the bailouts bribing newspapers, well, Postmedia is still publishing articles critical of the Liberal government.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

bgc_fan said:


> Again, did you read the initiative at all? Because it doesn't sound like it. It sounds like a generic rant on censorship.
> 1. There's nothing about prosecuting facts as hate speech.
> 2. They aren't directly funding any media sources. Funds are going to support non-profits and academic institutions for research. The closest to funding media sources is the Canada Periodical Fund which only provides funds to organizations to promote periodicals.
> 
> ...


Wow, do you even realise what you're saying?

"2. They aren't directly funding any media sources."
but you acknowledge they're bribing newspapers.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

sags said:


> You seem to have the opinion there should be no rules. That anyone can say anything and there should be no consequences.
> 
> I doubt many Canadians would support that concept.


No one said that so stop making things up. There have been laws against slander for decades.

It comes down to this: I don't trust the government to decide what is misinformation and I don't want them to have the power to silence opposing viewpoints. You may have forgotten that Trudeau previously tried to ban criticism of a certain religion. Now he wants to ban misinformation but if his past record is any indication he'll use it to ban criticism of his government.

As someone pointed out earlier...just imagine if some you hate (Trump) had the power to silence criticism. Now, Trump would never pass a law like that because he enjoys taking on his critics and he know how such a law would be abused by the wrong people.

On the other hand, Trudeau doesn't have the mental acuity to take on criticism so he bans accredited media that dare to ask him tough questions, bribes media that covers for him, and only takes questions from media that is sympathetic to him.


----------



## calm (May 26, 2020)

When somebody is accused of hate speech, it is not to get a conviction. It is about bankrupting you with lawyer fees and court costs.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Whenever Peterson invoked the fact that he was a professor employed by the University of Toronto, he was using their reputation to bolster his own credibility.
> 
> Any employer has the right to limit someone from misrepresenting them to the public. That is why the human rights tribunal was involved.
> 
> ...


No there should be rules.
However, you shouldn't be afraid to say things that are true. Or discuss issues.

It really is twisted that some people consider it a hate crime to say facts.
That's the problem, how can we honestly address or discuss issues when facts are banned?

That's where it goes too far.


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

calm said:


> I also think that access to any/all internet URL's located outside North America will require a licence of some type. (All Permissible websites will be located on servers located in North America.)
> In addition, no video content will be allowed unless you own a broadcast licence.


They're already working on it...



https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2020/09/as-heritage-minister-steven-guilbeault-plans-link-taxes-and-internet-content-regulation-where-is-navdeep-bains/





https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2020/09/weakening-net-neutrality-how-the-governments-internet-regulation-plan-abandons-the-principle-of-equal-treatment-of-content-online/





> Internet sites and services will still be available to Canadians, but the government’s Internet regulatory framework will mean that Internet content will not be treated in a neutral, equal fashion. The mandated Canadian content discoverability and promotion requirements will mean that a government regulator will influence what Canadians see when they access services, not the sites themselves. Further, Canadians will be unable to access the version of the site or service of their choice as the only option will be the regulated, Cancon version mandated by the CRTC.
> 
> 
> Similarly, news article sharing will not be treated equally. While the licensing of links will not alter the original content, it will treat the same link in an unequal manner. For example, this link to a Globe and Mail op-ed I wrote on broadcast regulation earlier this year will not require a licence, but Minister Guilbeault thinks this link to the same article on Facebook is immoral and apparently will require a licence. These same rules could be extended to this Reddit link or this Twitter link. The links all refer to the same article, but the Canadian rules could require licences for some, but not others.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

What was wrong with the rules we had up to, say, 1980? There was a time when there were rules against defamation, libel and slander but public discourse was not stifled unnecessarily. You could express any opinion for A to Z cubed and you might get into an argument but you wouldn't lose your job or get hauled before a kangaroo court. When did we decide to put the Z cubists in charge?


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Spudd said:


> Did any of you read the linked article and its linked initiatives? The Digital Citizen Initiative says that it is creating educational materials to encourage Canadians to think critically and counter misinformation via education.
> 
> It says nothing about censoring disinformation.


As far as I can determine so far, you are correct. It says, 
"In response to the increase in false, misleading and inflammatory disinformation published online and through social media, the Government of Canada has made it a priority to help equip citizens with the tools and skills needed to critically assess online information. "




__





Online disinformation - Canada.ca


Build up and strengthen citizen resilience against disinformation and promote diverse digital content.




www.canada.ca


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

james4beach said:


> This is a helpful exercise. Think about what happens with no restrictions on disinformation and conspiracy theory peddling. A total free-for-all.
> 
> Let's say it's 2025 and extreme leftism is on the rise (let's pretend for the sake of argument that they somehow find money and are able to afford marketing and lobbying).
> 
> ...


what's the difference between restricting disinformation and censorship? None. They are the same thing. 
One counters what one thinks is disinformation with critical thinking and presenting your own views.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Critical thinking requires facts and information. You can't apply critical thinking skills to lies and misinformation.


----------



## 5Lgreenback (Mar 21, 2015)

I can't believe how anyone could be for government control of speech and information. 

You don't need a PhD in history to know that this has never ended well for any civilization. 

I'm sure this time it will be different...


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The advent of the internet and social media didn't exist and have changed the future course of history.

Recent history shows the effect of losing control over unfettered speech and information.

It has now expanded into political interference into democratic processes, and more recently into deliberately providing false information to the public for the dangerous and criminal purpose of costing lives. As a society, this is an unacceptable perversion of the ideal of free speech in an open democracy.

Social media "gangs" now convict people without a trial, bully and threaten people, provide false information to mislead people, and exist for no useful or bona fide purpose. People must be held accountable for their actions or we will devolve into the dark chaos of a society without restraint.

The perpetrators have by their own deeds, forced the government to take action for the common good of society.


----------



## 5Lgreenback (Mar 21, 2015)

Right, so this time it is different. 

The government truly has the peoples best interest at heart. What could possibly go wrong?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> The advent of the internet and social media didn't exist and have changed the future course of history.
> 
> Recent history shows the effect of losing control over unfettered speech and information.
> 
> It has now expanded into political interference into democratic processes, and more recently into deliberately providing false information to the public for the dangerous and criminal purpose of costing lives. As a society, this is an unacceptable perversion of the ideal of free speech in an open democracy.


You're right, but exactly how would you shut down the disinformation feeding the BLM riots crossing the US?
Dozens have been killed.

Do you really think giving Trump the power to censor the internet will make the situation better?
Even if it did, I don't think giving Trump, or any other government that kind of power is a good idea.

The fallacy of your argument is multifold.
1. That the ruling class had control over speech and information.
2. That giving the ruling class this power is a good idea. North Korea has near complete control over their speech and information, doesn't look like it's working out too well.

We all know where this path leads, history is littered with this crap, maybe if people got a bit educated on where this all leads, they'd resist the temptation to restrict human rights.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

sags said:


> You can't apply critical thinking skills to lies and misinformation.


This is nonsense. Pure drivel.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> Wow, do you even realise what you're saying?
> 
> "2. They aren't directly funding any media sources."
> but you acknowledge they're bribing newspapers.


Do you have any reading comprehension?

The initiative doesn't directly fund media sources.
There is the other initiative where they gave a bailout to newspapers and media sources. 
You don't see the difference? And the point I was making on the second is that even when they gave the bailout, the newspapers are still critical of the government.

But yeah, to get to the original point, explain exactly how providing information and tools to develop critical thinking skills equate to censorship, which is what you seem to be avoiding.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

bgc_fan said:


> Do you have any reading comprehension?
> 
> The initiative doesn't directly fund media sources.
> There is the other initiative where they gave a bailout to newspapers and media sources.
> ...


I think you hit on the issue.
I see the whole "information control" initiative as "the initiative".
You are only looking at half the OP (original post) as "the initiative"

Sure by itself having better analysis skills is good, and I think that part of their program may be good.
It's the rest of the information control agenda that's the problem.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

The core point of the government initiative mentioned in this thread is preparing the Canadian population for disinformation and highly disruptive fake reporting which is pushed mainly through social media.

Our intelligence and security services (which are right-leaning by the way) have been telling us for some time that disinformation is being fuelled by malicious actors such as foreign agents & terrorists, and is a threat to democracy.

Question for @MrMatt and @Eder : don't you guys believe what the right-leaning intelligence services/police say? CSIS and CSEC, like their US counterparts, have been warning for some time that disinformation is a threat to democracy and Canadian systems. And @MrMatt , I thought you worked for the military. Why don't you check in with the responsible division and ask them for their opinion on this?

MrMatt doesn't sound like he's on board with the directions of the Canadian military, assuming he still serves under them.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> The core point of the government initiative mentioned in this thread is preparing the Canadian population for disinformation and highly disruptive fake reporting which is pushed mainly through social media.
> 
> Our intelligence and security services (which are right-leaning by the way) have been telling us for some time that disinformation is being fuelled by malicious actors such as foreign agents & terrorists, and is a threat to democracy.
> 
> ...



I don't think it's a right/left issues that there will be election interference.
We've had foreign interference for decades, and we should all be concerned.
This is one of the reasons I'm 100% against online voting. The integrity of our elections must not be impuned.

1. I am not in the military, I was.
2. You don't just "contact" the intelligence services and get an answer because you have a uniform.

I'm absolutely for fighting disinformation. 

I think certain aspects of their plan are problematic, don't you find some aspects problematic? 
For example, I'm terrified of government censorship of "unapproved" sources.

It really does get quite frustrating that you consistently seem to be arguing against positions that I don't hold.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> We've had foreign interference for decades, and we should all be concerned.
> . . .
> I'm absolutely for fighting disinformation.
> 
> ...


Thanks for correcting me here, I'm glad to hear you are also against disinformation. We're on the same page there.

I did not see anything in the material I read that makes me concerned about censorship.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> Wow, do you even realise what you're saying?
> 
> "2. They aren't directly funding any media sources."
> but you acknowledge they're bribing newspapers.


Anecdotal but today I cancelled my Globe & Mail subscription...it has become more & more sensationalist this year. I'll put the funds toward my Wall St Journal subscription...they seem to so far resist the populist cancel movement and actually use real people to report the news,a novel idea that G&M could learn from...

Oh...I cancelled my Netflix as well for obvious reasons lol. Good day today!


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Eder said:


> Anecdotal but today I cancelled my Globe & Mail subscription...it has become more & more sensationalist this year. I'll put the funds toward my Wall St Journal subscription...they seem to so far resist the populist cancel movement and actually use real people to report the news,a novel idea that G&M could learn from...
> 
> Oh...I cancelled my Netflix as well for obvious reasons lol. Good day today!


WSJ is pretty good. Why did you cancel Netflix? What is the 'obvious' reason?


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Eder said:


> Oh...I cancelled my Netflix as well for obvious reasons lol. Good day today!


We cancelled Netflix too...for (maybe the same) obvious reason.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Thanks for correcting me here, I'm glad to hear you are also against disinformation. We're on the same page there.
> 
> I did not see anything in the material I read that makes me concerned about censorship.


I'm not sure we are.

Slander, libel, and calls for violence should be restricted. 
Are you for government censorship and restrictions beyond the 3 items listed above?


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> I'm not sure we are.
> 
> Slander, libel, and calls for violence should be restricted.
> Are you for government censorship and restrictions beyond the 3 items listed above?


I'm not aware of any censorship occurring. Where does the government say they are going to censor anything at all?


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Prairie Guy said:


> We cancelled Netflix too...for (maybe the same) obvious reason.


This is a neat example of the media/ideology bubble that PG and @Eder are in. For those who are unfamiliar, there's a movement among the far-right (this includes Fox News) and QAnon (conspiracy theory cult) to cancel Netflix. It should be noted that Fox News has become increasingly radical, so it's getting hard to separate Fox News from QAnon.

Basically they have a problem with a new teen drama that's released. In usual far right / QAnon style, they say it's for pedophiles (of course...) so you should cancel Netflix. More pedophile paranoia and obsession. Why is the far right so obsessed with child sexuality and pedophiles? I'll leave you to think about that.

If you haven't heard about this, then congratulations, you are a normal person.

Please, guys. Stop consuming Fox News. It's really bad for your mental health.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> This is a neat example of the media/ideology bubble that PG and @Eder are in. For those who are unfamiliar, there's a movement among the far-right (this includes Fox News) and QAnon (conspiracy theory cult) to cancel Netflix. It should be noted that Fox News has become increasingly radical, so it's getting hard to separate Fox News from QAnon.
> 
> Basically they have a problem with a new teen drama that's released. In usual far right / QAnon style, they say it's for pedophiles (of course...) so you should cancel Netflix. More pedophile paranoia and obsession. Why is the far right so obsessed with child sexuality and pedophiles? I'll leave you to think about that.
> 
> ...


I've heard about the twerking 11yr old "Cuties" movie.
It's not a teen drama (by definition), apparently it has an excessive number of inappropriate shots of 11yr old girls "dancing".

Haven't heard about any "teen drama" to cancel netflix, care to support that claim.

It seems that the left is willing to label everyone "far right". 

Oh yeah, and most Conservatives are REALLY against pedophilia, sex trafficing and sexual abuse and exploitation. I would have hoped everyone was against those things, but apparently it's all a conspiracy.

So you can have the pedos if you want them, we're glad to stand against scum like that.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

The problem is that right wingers see it everywhere. That's not normal.

And yes, Fox News is the radical right. They're insane, and they make their viewers insane.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Please, guys. Stop consuming Fox News. It's really bad for your mental health.


Can you comment on any intellectuals to match up or oppose someone like Thomas Sowell or Candace Owens.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> The problem is that right wingers see it everywhere. That's not normal.
> 
> And yes, Fox News is the radical right. They're insane, and they make their viewers insane.


Lefties see racism everywhere.

It's not just the far right that thinks 11yr old girls shouldn't be dancing like strippers. There are Bernie Supporters who think this is too much.


----------



## calm (May 26, 2020)

Does anybody know how Trudeau and Health Canada is collecting all the data.
Who and how is all the "News" about Covid-19 being collected?
Is it government offices where each Covid-19 infection is directly reported to or is it to a private data firm?

I think that governments are getting well prepared to censor Covid-19 statistics.

If returning to work is anything like returning to school, statistics must show a reduction in Covid-19 victims.

Also, we are watching the collapse of American Empire and governments around the globe are preparing the stage for China and The Boys.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> I see the whole "information control" initiative as "the initiative".
> You are only looking at half the OP (original post) as "the initiative"


Since that's what the OP was, then that should be the discussion instead of trying to change the subject to suit your talking points.

But again, you still dodge the question, how does this initiative and any other initiative equate to censorship?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

bgc_fan said:


> Since that's what the OP was, then that should be the discussion instead of trying to change the subject to suit your talking points.
> 
> But again, you still dodge the question, how does this initiative and any other initiative equate to censorship?


The government is bribing certain sources, running a series of programs to label certain sources legitimate, and discredit other sources, and is running an education campaign to only trust "reliable sources".

It's pretty transparent.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> The government is bribing certain sources, running a series of programs to label certain sources legitimate, and discredit other sources, and is running an education campaign to only trust "reliable sources".
> 
> It's pretty transparent.


Define certain sources, and how. Are you talking about the media bailout or something else? All mainstream media? Even those that are still critical of the Liberals? Do you want to provide the evidence that they are targeting specific sources as legitimate and not legitimate? Right now, what I see is a bunch of programs that provide generic educational resources so that people can critically think and decide what type of information should be considered "fake". Backgrounder – Helping Citizens Critically Assess and Become Resilient Against Harmful Online Disinformation - Canada.ca

Maybe a couple of sites could be considered "news" sites, but cursory look doesn't appear to show anything overtly political.


----------



## :) lonewolf (Feb 9, 2020)

The censorship is bigger then Trudeau it has the united Nations written all over it. Trudeau is part of the problem playing the United Nations game.


----------



## :) lonewolf (Feb 9, 2020)

bgc_fan said:


> Define certain sources, and how. Are you talking about the media bailout or something else? All mainstream media? Even those that are still critical of the Liberals? Do you want to provide the evidence that they are targeting specific sources as legitimate and not legitimate? Right now, what I see is a bunch of programs that provide generic educational resources so that people can critically think and decide what type of information should be considered "fake". Backgrounder – Helping Citizens Critically Assess and Become Resilient Against Harmful Online Disinformation - Canada.ca
> 
> Maybe a couple of sites could be considered "news" sites, but cursory look doesn't appear to show anything overtly political.


 I clicked on the link. Complete joke the schools & universities teach man made global warming have kids wearing masks based on bogus science. They do not teach the laws of logic or principals of thought to distinguish truth from falsehood. The recent educational learning mania produced a lot of dependent thinkers instead of focusing on thinking rather then learning. Teachers in schools are a complete joke with their adds wanting to make masks mandatory for all & wanting smaller classes. Are they really that stupid or do they just want more money thrown their way for education ?


----------

