There's one specific, particularly insidious aspect of extending #BillC10 to user-generated content that I've seen kinda alluded to but not made explicit. It's about the nature of broadcasting law and why it exists, and the nature of user-generated content. 1/x

As @EmilyLaidlaw says here, broadcasting laws are heavy-duty. But the *reason* they are heavy-duty and made sense originally is b/c of who they governed: mass media entities with complete editorial control over what they published or broadcasted. https://twitter.com/EmilyLaidlaw/status/1387120751011008512 #BillC10

More importantly, it wasn't just the editorial control. It's the fact that they were the ONLY MASS MEDIA ENTITIES IN EXISTENCE. That's incredibly difficult to imagine now thx to the Internet. If you were shut out of the equiv of CBC, Random House, Postmedia, Fox, you had nowhere.

Maybe tiny zines to be distributed physically in the local neighbourhood? Or begging for scraps of mandated "community channel" access from broadcasters? Again, NO INTERNET. Broadcasting entities had to be controlled so heavily *to preserve public good* b/c *they're all we had*.

Now, this is putting aside discussion of what furthers public good and who decides. For instance, the importance and contents of "Canadian cultural sovereignty" is highly debatable, given more intersectional & decolonialist understanding of each of Canada, culture, & sovereignty.

Point is, traditional entities regulated under broadcasting law when it originated, were the gatekeepers to EVERYTHING public discourse-wise. So the govt had to keep them in line, esp when combined with the moral hazards of commercialization of media. (Again, in theory /intent).

Fast-fwd to td. Thx to the Internet, no more gatekeepers!! If CBC rejects documentary on anti-Black police brutality, there's YouTube. If Postmedia rejects op-ed on victim-blaming in sexual violence, blog it. If music label rejects subversive album for queer youth, post it.

To be clear, none of those things are okay; not saying that b/c Internet exists, it's fine for legacy media outlets to still be racist, misogynistic, sex-negative, transphobic, etc. But AT LEAST there's an alternative. Gatekeepers are still there, but now there are other yards.

Back to #BillC10 applying to user content. It's so insidious because broadcasting law was created to govern the GATEKEEPERS. Thus super heavy-duty. And now @CdnHeritage wants to apply that exact legal regime to THE HISTORICALLY & STILL GATE-KEPT. It is breathtakingly regressive.

Anyway, it has been torturous seeing all the developments on both #BillC10 and related proposed legislation (copyright, "online harms") from @CdnHeritage over past months & not having bandwidth to say anything. There is a way to get platform regulation right and THIS IS NOT IT.

This will not help vulnerable & historically + ongoingly marginalized ppl impacted by platform-facilit'd & OH YEAH MEDIA-PERPETUATED systemic harms. Using broadcasting law to get at the Internet will only shut down the very spaces they needed to get heard in the first place. x/x