Public Service vs Big Brother: Feds looking at fighting online misinformation…online.

From the CTV News story here.

So a story was released on Sunday regarding online facts vs ‘misinformation’. Apparently the Federal Government is looking at means to fight misinformation (and sometimes outright lies) in online forums such as Facebook Groups and Comment Sections:

The government is looking for ways to monitor online chatter about political issues and correct what it perceives as misinformation….

…The seal hunt pilot project was set up in part “to establish foundations and recommendations for future programs and campaigns to use social media as another way to listen to, inform and engage with Canadians”

Right off the top, those of us experienced in Blogging and Commenting online about various issues know that there are those out there who will immediately assume that this will be nothing more than a propaganda machine for the government in power. Having read through the comments of the story, I’m sorry to say that I wasn’t disappointed in my expectation.

Now in all fairness, this could very well be true. The potential for abuse and propaganda peddling is self-evident. However, I believe that those who will be most threatened by this, are those who intentionally misrepresent information, stories and facts in order to further their own personal agenda. I also believe that those who shout loudest about Big Brother et al. are those who have the most to lose if a Federal Representative were to intrude upon their rant with actual facts (and in this statement, I’m assuming that only facts are what will be posted). Such comments/replies will of course become subject to ridicule and further attack.

On the bright side, this is also a government who is recognizing that as more and more Canadians resort to online forums of all sorts to obtain their information, they too will have to go where the people are. Provided that it’s “just the facts ma’am“, and rhetoric and propaganda are left at the door so-to-speak, then I believe that this is truly a responsible proposal.

With Governments falling victim to shoddy “Gotcha!” reporting tactics where the Headline and By-line are far more important than the actual facts and issues at hand (not to mention the importance or lack thereof), misinformation is spreading like wildfire among the populace. The natural reaction of any responsible government would be to take advantage of any means by which to provide factual information wherever possible.

As someone who is more interested in facts and truth, I wouldn’t mind in the least if a member of the Federal Government were to show up and post corrections on something I had written online. If I disagreed, I would be able to challenge them directly, visibly, for all to see, and then be proven right or wrong. Again: Publicly. Visibly. I have no issues with this, and in fact, encourage it.

So the Pros and Cons? On the pro side, it engages people with their government, and facts can be set straight. A laudable and credible endeavour. It may also create a pressure for commentators and authors to clearly state that this is ‘their opinion‘ and that it ‘should not be taken as fact.’ On the con side, if abused, it will only serve to forever widen the gap between the Government and Public Trust. The danger of this can not be over-emphasized, and should the Federal Government embark on this initiative on a larger scale, they absolutely must do so responsibly with an eye to the public good and stick to the facts.

Not a dhimmi

Comedy Central may have bowed the knee, but Chris Muir is not going gently into that good night.

Waiter: And for you, prophet?

Mo: A BLT, another Spaten and a high chair for my wife.

Ba-dum.

H/T

Dhimmitude

Piss Mohammed. Shyte Fatima. A teddy bear being born from the penis of Mohammed. These you will never see as long as Islam is exalted above freedom.

Anderson Cooper: In South Park… they show Buddha snorting cocaine. You don’t see death threats or warnings from Buddhists.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali: And you don’t see death threats from Jews when Moses is depicted in an unbecoming position. And you don’t see threats from Christians when Jesus Christ… is put in a satire position. [...]
The South Park episode of last weekend was not just funny and it wasn’t just witty, it addressed an essential piece in the times that we are living: There is one group of people, one religion [Islam, -ed.], that is claiming to be above criticism.

Indeed, and with death threats to boot for those who dare disagree.

Free people have a clear choice: Be free or bow the knee to Islam. There is no middle ground.

Comedy Central, like many artists before it, has bowed the knee. They have chosen dhimmitude over freedom and, in doing so, stand condemned.

All Extortion is Local, Broadcast Television (2nd) Edition

The CRTC has come out with a decision regarding the transmission of broadcast television via cable, and it’s a complete mess.  First, they come out with new obligations that they are going to implement on broadcast and cable companies:

Group-based policy

In 2011, the CRTC will hold licence-renewal hearings for the largest English-language private ownership groups. The largest groups are: CTVglobemedia Inc., Canwest Television Limited Partnership and Rogers Communications Inc.

This approach will permit the CRTC to introduce new requirements to encourage and support the creation of Canadian programs.

The CRTC will propose that the three largest ownership groups spend at least 30 per cent of their gross revenues on Canadian programming. However, they will be able to shift resources among their English-language conventional television stations and specialty services to meet this obligation.

Then they have the audacity to claim that they are introducing a market-based system:

As part of its framework, the Commission has set out a market-based solution to allow private local television stations to negotiate with cable and satellite companies. Each television station would have the option of entering into negotiations to establish a fair value for the distribution of their programs.

Yes, because nothing screams “market-based” like a government agency deciding how a company must spend their money, and which party in a commercial transaction gets to decide whether they’ll negotiate or not.

As The Globe and Mail reports:

Under the new system, the broadcasters would have the choice every three years to negotiate value for their signals. If they choose to do so, they give up regulatory protections that require cable and satellite companies to carry all the conventional networks and to place them at a preferential point on the dial (on channel 8 instead of 508, for example). That three-year option was proposed by CTV at the hearings in November.

So, basically, cable companies will be given permission to carry over-the-air signals for free, if the broadcast television companies so choose.  However, if they are granted this privilege, cable companies will have to continue to provide preferential channels to broadcast television stations.  So broadcasters get to, essentially, make the rules.  The complaint against broadcast TV has been that no one seems to have a viable business model, but now the CRTC has solved that problem.  These corporations get to choose a business model, and then force everyone else to play along!  And if that doesn’t work, in three years they can force everyone to go along with a whole new business model (yeah, I have no idea why three years are so magical, either).

Of course, as pointed in the Globe and Mail article, consumers will need their cable providers to carry these stations in order to be able to watch a lot of the most popular American TV shows, as the parent networks own the rights to these shows.  This is the ace that the networks are holding; no cable company will want to deny its viewers the pleasures of American Idol, Glee or 30 Rock.  Of course, no one should pay attention to the chutzpah displayed by these networks, who were able to bid exorbitant sums for the rights to these programs precisely because they had the increased distribution and signal quality afforded by cable.  To think that a company like CTV has the audacity to frame itself as the little guy is pretty laughable.

Now, there is a bit of a dilemma in all of this.  Broadcast television is providing a resource to cable companies from which they can profit, and they have been doing so relatively free of charge.  (Sure, the value of this resource is declining, but let’s ignore that for now.)  It seems only right that they should be rewarded for their services.  As such, I propose the following solution.  The government should allow broadcast television stations to either sell their feed or give it away for free, whichever they choose.

That’s it.  That’s all that should be done.  Cable companies can enter into negotiations or not.  There are zero obligations imposed on either party.  From there, people can choose whatever television service they prefer.

One other thing I’d like to see (aside from the disbanding of the CRTC) – I’d like to see cable companies provide for their customers a cable receiver that doubles as rabbit ears for broadcast television.  I don’t see how this would be impossible, especially with the soon to be mandated digital broadcast of television signals.  This would solve everyone’s problems.  Cable companies wouldn’t transmit broadcast signals, but cable customers would still be able to watch So You Think You Can Dance Canada.

Of course, broadcast companies would have to provide a worthwhile service, and that’s the rub.

There’s a lot more going on in the CRTC’s decision.  Can you read their press release here, and the reference document here.

I first wrote about this issue here.

Ann Coulter Talk Gets Cancelled – Hate Spews Forth Shortly Thereafter

I’ll spare you the specific details about the cancellation of Ann Coulter’s talk at the University of Ottawa, but before this whole controversy calms down, make sure to check out the comments trending on twitter relating to Ann Coulter.

It’s pure unadulterated hate poring forth from those who claim Coulter is the one who promotes hate.

Here is a sampling:

marandamoses: God don’t like ugly, Coulter. Do unto others…

twatblock: RT @sandeepgu: Guess what Ann Coulter? Mother Mary, jesus’s wife wore a ‘Jihadist scarf’!! Ha ha fucking ignorant twat!

jungho_kim: RT @ValentinaVH How is Ann Coulter still alive with all that fecal matter pouring out of her mouth? U know, the mouth above her adam’s apple

It’s kinda ironic, isn’t it?

Could Amazon be the first of many bringing jobs to Canada?

Amazon.com is looking to open a new Distribution Centre here in Canada, if Canadian Heritage allows for it.

Canadian Heritage has 45 days to complete the review launched Jan. 27, but it could be extended by another 30 days if needed.

Walid Hejazi, a professor of international business at the University of Toronto, said he believes the government is close to allowing Amazon in to Canada, a move that would be consistent with the government’s recent steps to open Canada to more foreign investment.

And doing so would provide better prices and more jobs to Canadians.

Paul Misener, Amazon’s vice-president of global public policy who has been meeting with government officials, says a Canadian distribution centre would provide a benefit to the country.

“We are pleased to be continuing to communicate with policy-makers about the benefits that we have brought to Canadian culture both within Canada and globally,” he said Wednesday.

With the Canadian government opening up the telecom and satellite industry to foreign ownership allowances, Amazon could potentially be leading the way (hopefully) for foreign corporations coming into Canada and being able to take advantage of the benefits of doing business in Canada.

But, in many ways, Canada has been a closed market to so many different competitors because of those very foreign ownership laws and how they slam up against our cultural preservation limitations.

However, if it happens, and more follow, those industry “giants” as some call them, will only add to jobs in Canada which leads to a larger tax base, both corporately and in individual spending.

And Jack Layton wants to prevent tax benefits for “big business”. Michael Ignatieff doesn’t think the current Budget will create new jobs for Canadians.

“We will vote against it, but in a way that does not provoke an election,” Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff told reporters, speaking in French. “I don’t see a path in this budget that gets Canadians back to work. This is the key thing.”

Mr. Layton and Mr. Ignatieff, this is how this Budget could, and I stress could get Canadians back to work and raise our GDP to levels that can accomplish what the Budget proposes.

Instead of poo-pooing the Budget just because you hate the Conservatives, try finding ways to make it work, or make it work better.

Support the Government and encourage these initiatives that are bringing investors and jobs to Canada!

Tapping the international moral compass

… and finding it skewed.

Uganda.

Witch doctors in Uganda have admitted their part in human sacrifice amid concerns that the practice is spreading in the African country.

One man said he had clients who had captured children and taken their blood and body parts to his shrine, while another confessed to killing at least 70 people including his own son. [...]

“They go and capture other people’s children. They bring the heart and the blood directly here to take to the spirits,” he said. [...]

“We also have about 120 children and adults reported missing whose fate we have not traced,” he added. “From the experience of those whom we recovered, we cannot rule out that they may be victims of human sacrifice.”

Now what on earth could possibly elicit greater international outrage than blood-letting and heart extraction from children and adults?

Yes, of course. Silly me.

Early Avatar Reviews

For those of you that are as excited as I am about James Cameron’s upcoming epic blockbuster: Rotten Tomatoes has posted some early reviews.

I’m not Listening to Barack Obama

So the president is on TV to talk about his plans for Afghanistan (plans that had, I thought, already been unveiled).  Well, I’ve had enough.  He has been on prime time television a lot since the inauguration.  I’m interested in his plan, but I don’t feel like listening to another speech.  I think I’ll just read it instead.

Besides, Christmas Vacation is on.

Blogs v. The Legacy Media

Occasionally the question comes up as to why I get my news from blogs instead of conventional big media news sources. Blogs are written by amateurs, they’re full of unsourced opinions, they’re poorly edited. Journalists writing for the legacy media are trained professionals following relatively strict codes of conduct, with layers of editing and access to vast amounts of well-sourced information. All true.

For an up-to-the-minute example of why blogs are superior to, for example, big newspapers, look no further than one of the least reputable of my favourite American blogs, Ace of Spades HQ: ClimateGate gets real legs – London Times reports on CRU’s thrown away raw data:

Their data ditching is actually old, high profile coverage of it and its implications, not so old.

Exactly my point. I read about the data loss weeks before the CRU email scandal broke. People relying on the London Times are only reading about this today.

Next Page »