Law Prof, CRC in Internet and E-commerce Law
@uocommonlaw @LawBytesPod
Mastodon: https://t.co/i2Y7ZQJ4PS | @mgeist@mas.to
https://t.co/3QZfqszBsa
https://t.co/F736lh0mJt
5 subscribers
Feb 26 • 10 tweets • 2 min read
Some were expecting the worst with Bill C-63 given government’s poor track record on Internet regulation. But with bill not driven by lobbyists or a motivated by an “evil tech” narrative, my first quick read of the government’s materials (not bill itself) is pretty positive. 1/10
Bill C-63 is a major departure from 2021 consultation and many of the provisions are consistent with expectations on my podcast today. Narrowly tailored harms, no site blocking, limited takedowns. Focus on protecting children, targeting hate and making online space safer. 2/10
Oct 4, 2023 • 8 tweets • 4 min read
Ok, let’s break down this thread from Heritage Minister @PascaleStOnge_ . Bill C-18 situation is disastrous: Meta already gone on news and Google may be next. Huge losses. Bill C-11 situation now also problematic as regs unfold.
Not remotely accurate. My post on the registration requirements, which cover any audio or video site or service anywhere in the world with $10M in Canadian revenue. Well beyond large global platforms. CRTC says podcasters still in.
I’ve got a detailed post on CRTC’s new registration requirements for Internet services and why there are some reasons for concern. This may not be the censorship regime some suggest, but it definitely signals an extensive regulatory framework coming. 1/6
First, much of the problem lies with government, which claimed Bill C-11 was just about web giants and “platforms were in and users were out.” This was never true. Law always broadly covered all audio and visual services worldwide including podcasts, news, and adult sites. 2/6
Mar 24, 2023 • 7 tweets • 4 min read
This tweet from Heritage Minister @pablorodriguez comes as the government hopes to wrap up Bill C-11 and its rejection of the Senate fix to user content regulation. Hard to overstate how misleading it is, but I’ll try. There are 5 claims to unpack: 1/7
Bill C-11 Claim 1: “platforms pay their fair share”
Reality: Platforms already are among the biggest investors in Canadian film/TV production. The problem is Cancon rules treat films like Turning Red or Jusqua’au as non-Canadian based on ownership. 2/7
How misguided is Bill C-18’s approach to mandated payments for links?
Consider this @cselley column. This tweet by the National Post includes a link but is not captured by the bill, because at this stage it appears unlikely Twitter qualifies as a DNI. 1/4
Postmedia also posted the same link to the @cselley column on Facebook. Its post is captured by Bill C-18 because it includes a link. Same link, same referral traffic, but law envisions requiring Facebook paying Postmedia for it. 2/4 facebook.com/NationalPost/p…
Mar 11, 2023 • 8 tweets • 4 min read
Meta confirms it will stop news sharing on Facebook and Instagram under Bill C-18. This was an obvious outcome given mandated payments for links + government talking about uncapped liability for up to 35% of all news expenditures. How did we get here? 1/8
The foundation of Bill C-18 is mandated payment for links, raising real risks to the free flow of information and harming smaller, independent media. @pablorodriguez was unconcerned and was content to rush through the bill with little debate. 2/8 michaelgeist.ca/2022/09/why-th…
Mar 9, 2023 • 13 tweets • 6 min read
Hey @pablorodriguez: Canadian Digital Creators Are Not Loopholes. The Heritage Minister says a Bill C-11 amendment to exclude regulating user content is a loophole. It's not. The dismissal of Canadian digital creators as loopholes is shameful. 1/13
PM @JustinTrudeau comments on Bill C-18 and Google yesterday raise several concerns. (1) He said Google preventing Canadians from accessing news. This is false. Google doesn’t have power to block sites. Search results and content blocking not the same. 1/4
2) @JustinTrudeau said Bill C-18 about paying journalists for their work. But the bill includes hundreds of broadcasters simply because they have a CRTC licence with *no* requirement to produce any news. That’s a subsidy, not compensation. 2/4
Looking to learn more about Bill C-18? Here are a few podcasts I’ve done that provide a good review. First, my appearance on @FrontBurnerCBC last month debated the benefits and risks with the bill. 1/4
Bill C-18 will pass in the House of Commons later today. This post unpacks why this bill received an embarrassing legislative review driven by lobby interests determined to extract payments for links. A longer thread on what you might have missed… 1/14
From the moment it was introduced, the foundation of Bill C-18 was obvious: payments for links. Internet platforms don’t reproduce full text, so the payments could only be grounded in linking to the original source. 2/14
Heritage Minister @pablorodriguez opening statement on Bill C-11 before Senate committee is more of the same. Denies impact on digital creators. Claims will increase consumer choice when the opposite is true as more likely services block Canadian market due to the bill.
First question to @pablorodriguez is whether will support amendment to eliminate application to user content.
Basically answer is no. Continues to gaslight by saying users aren’t regulated and “only small amount of commercial content” [like all TikTok videos with music].
Nov 14, 2022 • 9 tweets • 4 min read
A few observations on the @globeandmail speaking out critically on Bill C-18. I believe they’re saying what many are thinking: the bill is a risky way to support the sector, driven largely by a few vocal lobby groups. A thread… 1/9
While the Globe says it supports the principle of Bill C-18, its discomfort has been obvious for months. Unlike @postmedia & @Torstar, it hasn’t embarrassingly turned over its editorial to support it or devoted its front page to lobbying for it. 2/9
Heritage Minister @pablorodriguez told the Heritage committee yesterday he had no idea what was happening with CMAC/Marouf and funding an anti-semite until he read about it in the media on August 22nd. That seems completely implausible. 1/7
On August 21st, @HonAhmedHussen tweeted about the situation, saying he working to rectify the matter. The tweet came in response to mounting coverage of the issue. @pablorodriguez would have you believe he wasn’t informed. 2/7
Short thread on Global Affairs/Justice appearance before Senate Committee on Bill C-11. Global Affairs says “we took agreements into account”. Here’s reality: risk that Bill C-11 violates Articles 14.5, 14.10, and 19.4 of CUSMA. Potential for billions in tariff retaliation. 1/6
Global Affairs asked about risk of tariff retaliation under CUSMA. Official responds that it believes bill is consistent with the trade agreement. Acknowledges U.S. has raised issues with the bill. Describes discussion as “amicable.” 2/6
Sep 14, 2022 • 4 tweets • 1 min read
Just catching up with Senate committee hearing on Bill C-11. Privacy Commissioner of Canada raises risk discoverability rules could involve increased collection and use of personal info including viewing habits. Says implementation is key, plans to appear before CRTC on C-11. 1/4
Privacy commissioner says could add a provision to the Broadcasting Act objectives to ensure that privacy is included, similar to approach with Telecom Act. Could also allow for an off-switch on algorithmic issues raised by Bill C-11 since could use personal information. 2/4
Jul 17, 2022 • 6 tweets • 3 min read
Defending the indefensible doesn’t take a break for the summer. Here’s Heritage Minister @pablorodriguez Chief of Staff last night on Bill C-11 insisting “no Cancon quotas on social media” and no content standards. A thread on the reality of Bill C-11…1/6
.@jajmatheson relies on exclusion of social media from CRTC’s power to set conditions on proportion of programs to be broadcast in Section 9.1(1)a-d. But the very next section - 9.1(1)(e) - does apply to social media sites, giving CRTC power over “presentation of programs”. 2/6
Apr 22, 2022 • 5 tweets • 3 min read
My post yesterday on the government’s secretive approach to online harms with @pablorodriguez refusal to release hundreds of submissions until compelled to do so under ATIP has generated a lot of attention. But it’s not just about a bad consultation 1/5
Today’s post identifies at least four problems. First, lack of transparency runs counter to promises of an open, transparent government. @JustinTrudeau even introduced a bill on open by default in 2014. Disclosures only via ATIP are not transparency. 2/5
The focus on the costs of @cafreeland#Budget2022 copyright term extension has rightly focused on the lost generation of Canadian authors. As noted yesterday, no public domain for McLuhan, Laurence, Roy, etc. for an additional 20 years. 1/4
But the historical impact can’t be underestimated. Canadians will lose public domain access to the works and papers of some of Canada’s most notable leaders and figures of modern times: two former Prime Ministers in Diefenbaker and St. Laurent… 2/4
When I wrote my first response to @pablorodriguez Bill C-18, I warned the bill threatened press independence, noting that I knew of cases where opinion pieces were spiked because they criticized Canadian Heritage, who was the primary lobbying target. 1/4
This wasn’t idle speculation. It happened to me last year in a piece on then Heritage Minister @s_guilbeault. Approved by the section editor and rejected by senior management. Has now started happening with Bill C-18 opinion pieces. 2/4
Copyright term extension may have been buried in an annex in #Budget2022, but @cafreeland has been grappling with the issue since her election in 2015 from the TPP to USMCA to recent trade battles over electric vehicles. A thread… 1/7
In 2015, the Liberal government inherited the Trans Pacific Partnership, which included term extension. @cafreeland was International Trade Minister. Canada consulted and delayed deciding whether to move ahead with the agreement. 2/7 michaelgeist.ca/2016/06/democr…
Apr 8, 2022 • 6 tweets • 3 min read
Hard to think of a worse week in Canadian digital policy. First, Bill C-11 continues to chug along with the government relying on cartoons to misleadingly claim that the bill won’t touch user generated content (it clearly does). 1/6
Meanwhile, the Chair of the CRTC implausibly claims independence while actively supporting Bill C-11, legislation that would govern the Commission. The lack of public trust in the CRTC is well-earned with the Chair still facing charges of bias. 2/6
