Is there any compelling reason to limit free speech on social media by the government? There are already laws covering speech limits. Speech limits are myopic in nature, they solve a short term problem by muzzling specific people/views. But, they usually create longer term negative effects that are more difficult to see in the moment.
The CRTC regulations on broadcaster covers the following categories:
> Protection of children.
> Restrictions against hate speech.
> Protection of national production and national culture.
> Right of reply.
> Restriction on the quantity of advertising, of ad for certain products (tobacco, pharmaceutical drugs), and on product placement
Today, no internet company is considered a "broadcaster", and thus is unregulated by the CRTC. The bill is to propose redefining what counts as a broadcaster so that online businesses also fall under the regulations.
At a high level, I think it means Netflix, YouTube, Facebook, TikTok, etc.
The issue is that the internet made it easy for everyone to become a broadcaster. So the question with the bill is how will you distinguish an individual broadcasting a video they made, from a broadcasting business or entity that would need regulating?
And when would an individual broadcaster become an entity in need of regulating? Is having 100 million subscriber something that makes you an entity needing to be regulated? Is it if you make money from it? Is it if you're paid by others for what you broadcast?
Then there's also the question of what is a broadcast? Must it include video, must it include audio, what about images? Or video games? Or texts? Or other forms of multimedia?
