Can you give an example of a lefty state government aggressively pushing for censorship?
I'm not from Canada and taking a cursory look at what this bill does I don't see any censorship here. Could you explain?
Having said that, it's a very stupid law.
Put another way, if it should be legal for Google to do whatever they want with copyrighted content, I should also be able to do whatever I want with Google's intellectual property. You've got a status quo bias by looking at C-18 as "aggressively pushing for censorship" but ignoring Google's successful "censorship" of people who would copy other copyrighted works.
You are right I do have a bias. I'm not particularly trusting of Google or Meta, but in this particular argument I would side with them (even though as you point out Google in particular has been successful in other types of censorship)
Those who qualify as "news businesses" and are eligible to impose mandatory purchase of their news products, will have government-mandated carriage on social media platforms operating in Canada. Their news and stories will reach much further and with more spread, than those who do not qualify or participate.
In practice it benefits the major corporations like Rogers and Bell Media, and will not likely be of benefit to your local town newsletter, or someone trying to blow a whistle on the government. Unless it's a qualified "news business" as defined in the act, that content is now required to be de-emphasized, so you and I are less likely to see it.
Political censorship is not the intent of C-18, nor is it likely a consequence. (The real point of it is to subsidize the ailing major media corporations in Canada.) But when you start picking which messages will be amplified, you are implicitly turning down the volume on other messages, and it is, I think, by the broadest definition, a type of censorship.
If anyone is wondering the criteria for being deemed a Digital News Intermediary, there are two requirements: 1. a platform must be in a position of a “significant bargaining imbalance” between themselves and the news businesses. This is determined by the CTRC / Heritage Minister and is based on several factors (outlined in section 6 of the bill): e.g. "whether such an imbalance exists, including the size of the platform, whether the market gives the platform a strategic advantage, and if the platform occupies a prominent market position. According to Rodriguez (the Heritage Minister), only two platforms meet this standard: Google and Meta. This is why platforms such as Microsoft (with Bing and LinkedIn), Twitter, and Apple are not subject to the law even though they feature news links. 2. The second requirement is that the digital news intermediary must make news available content available to persons in Canada. If the platform does not make news content available, it is not a digital news intermediary.
Recent attempts to regulate "misinformation", "disinformation", and the new "malinformation" are all mechanisms for censorship as well. In the United States, the Disinformation Governance Board was created by the lefty government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation_Governance_Boar...
Ironically, during a hearing on censorship, RFK Junior was set to testify. The Democrat senator from Florida moved to stop the session and censor his testimony citing something else he had previously said that the senator did not like.
https://thehill.com/policy/technology/4108865-rfk-jr-hearing...
>Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) made a motion to move the committee into executive session — closing the hearing to the public — over concerns about Kennedy’s recent statement on COVID-19.
i.e. in a hearing specifically on censorship, the Democrat senator moved to censor Kennedy's testimony. I am not saying that I agree with what Kennedy said, but this is an obvious attempt at censorship.
The lefty government in Europe just started enforcing the DSA, and to quote Wikipedia:
>Swedish MEP Jessica Stegrud argued that the DSA's focus on preventing the spread of disinformation and "harmful content" would undermine freedom of speech.[58]
As evidenced by the Twitter Files, before Musk took over the left was censoring right leaning accounts heavily, corresponding directly with US federal agencies and taking orders to "investigate" specific accounts that were critical of lefty politicians.
It culminated in the Disinformation Governance Board: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/29/disinform...
From the article:
"For example, California presents its Age-Appropriate Design Code as a privacy regulation. Yet, the law imposes obligations on websites to deploy algorithms, designs, and features in a certain way or face fines. Of course, algorithms, features, and designs are the means by which websites develop, display, and disseminate speech."
I know a lot of people will say, “but there’s a good reason and that censorship is justified.” It is still censorship.
But let's not forget the censorship around the hunter Biden laptop story and the censorship of lab leak theories for covid. Both completely legitimate topics, both completely blocked out during an election year. The right wasn't calling for or defending those actions, the left was.
"For example, California presents its Age-Appropriate Design Code as a privacy regulation. Yet, the law imposes obligations on websites to deploy algorithms, designs, and features in a certain way or face fines. Of course, algorithms, features, and designs are the means by which websites develop, display, and disseminate speech."