Hope your doors work. ;)
- an Ottawa citizen
"Experts" are called "experts" for a reason, well at least some of them. What I mean by that is that they are professionals who have dedivoted their lives, yet people decide to listen to business "experts" (here I use air quotes for the perpose of deminishing the word) rather than trained professionals who are mentioned in headlines as "experts" due to the word having fewer characters.
Obviously talking with hindsight here, if only other people held the same position, we would've not been decimated by the 3rd wave.
https://liberapay.com/ It's like Patreon, but community funded and not owned by a for-profit corporation. Instead, it's a non-profit based in France and does not take any cuts of any donations and relies on people donating to the project on the platform itself.
Also, why CC-BY-SA instead of CC-BY-NC-SA? If you're not selling them and publish under a commercial friendly license you open yourself to commercial exploitation where other entities can sell your work on the market without compensating you. The Creative Common's Non-Commercial license does not restrict any specific licenses you may draw up with clients.
Since you're a cooperative, have you looked into the Peer Productions License?
Thanks for writing a substantive and humorous reply.
A few things to clarify: The 4 years comes from the American context where most elections take place every 4 years. In Canada with amendments to the Canada Elections Act Parliament can sit up to 5 years. So I guess we should do calculations with 5 instead?
Also, the reason it was a minus and not a plus is because you're not "getting used to a developed brain" but rather be given the opportunity to influence the world you'll be in by the time you're that age.
Driving is a skill, and like any skill it's best to learn it while young; kind of like riding a bike except with a 2 tonne metal object. Voting, while should be taken seriously, is not a skill in the same way. So that's my distinction.
I get what you're saying about every election being a referendum, but I was mainly thinking about referendum questions such as Quebec/Scotland/Catalonia independence and European Union membership, stuff like that.
Now on to the rest. I like how you brought up a bunch of important things such as scientific discrimination/racism, and it's very much a warranted fear. I would stand clear of any individual testing. Furthermore, I think the number was made over a large population and as such is an average of sorts. I'd rather take it from there to have some level of abstraction and not get too personal. You're probably right with the different levels of maturity found among any age group, but again I'd rather rely on averages. It is also important to be careful because as you noted science has been used to discriminate against people we now find abhorrent. To be honest the rationale for excluding potential younger voters is based in the same traditions. The only real thing I can say is that the "development" is compared to an abstract "full development" based on averages.
The thing I'm most interested is setting the custom. By having high school students participate in elections it more likely will set up the habit of voting that currently is. My only counter would be that a national holiday would be more effective at this.
I like your comments and hope you provide more insight into my position. Sorry for my response not being as funny as yours.
You know what? I didn't even consider that possibility. I was thinking for the community to be hosted on a Canadian domain by Canadians. Your suggestion, in opinion, is very interesting and since it is a separate instance, a more comprehensive moderation policies could be made. Nice. I do hope however, that interaction with and visibility within other Canadian parts of the fediverse are set as, at least near, top priorities.
Thanks for being patient and providing a detailed response.
I was referring to the backlash in general. I also think the article and your comment were a bit too negative. However, reading this comment shows me that there is always more nuance and things I don't know, which is good.
I hope that they only restrict the regulations to commercial entities, however again it depends on the wording. I should also note that the point of the legislative branch is to pass legislation. The legislation can be struck down or upheld in the Supreme Court. Our version of rights is different from the U.S. and our Supreme Court is not as partisan, at least not overtly. I think that's where the distinction will be made. If the legislation is too broad the courts will enforce only the section and interpretation that upholds rights for people or struck down. I can see there is a bunch of grey areas. Personally, the line I would draw is if the poster is a person or if it is a legal commercial entity. There are sole proprietor ships, however those legal constructs are not distinct from the person it is just a way for people to produce goods and services commercially. That is also a grey area and an area of discussion, should they be included or not? I would say any and all commercial activity should be regulated, and personal activity shouldn't. So in the case of podcasts, we already know that big corporate entities do that and small commercial entities exist as well. Those, in my opinion, should be regulated. There could also be sole proprietors that do that as well. That I can understand to be a grey area, there are a lot of "small and independent creators". In all cases when you have a reduced barrier to entry, especially compared to radio and TV, regulation will be more invasive. What type of "podcast" should not count as being out of the scope of regulation? Should one where no one is being paid be regulated? What about frequency? If you post once a month count? I can see how invasive it is; however, we are also decreasing the barrier for people to produce content. The technology changes and so should the regulation, even it increases its reach. There is also the problem of enforcement which I can't see how it could be done.
As in regard to the terrible record of CRTC, I can see how terrible it can be. Could you provide some sources for that, I don't mean it as a gotcha just so that I can understand the institution better. I want more Canadian content to be available, but I understand the current layout, if it is not working, needs to be fixed. I think that our current setup as a liberal democracy, I mean our current representative setup, is not equipped to hold such institutions accountable. We are living in a different age compared to when the Constitution Act was still known as the British North America Act. For that I can see how regulation can be and done ineffectively. In my opinion, there should be new institutions that are better suited should be made. An idea, we have school trustees that oversee the school boards, could we elect trustees that oversee regulatory bodies, especially ones concerning nontechnical matters? I can understand the frustration with the CRTC, but I hope we could try to improve it or replace it. At this point I think, like all regulators, it can be corrupted.
We should just abolish private banks.
Legal tender is issued by the state and subject to democratic oversight, then so should the financial instruments. It could be set independently by having a highly regulated and federated set of financial co-operatives.
I have put my thoughts in a comment under a different post here https://lemmy.ca/post/6393.
If you don't agree, that's fine, just see it as steelmaning the opponent's arguments. I'd like to hear a response to what I wrote and currently think.
I wasn't involved with writing the article nor the legislation, but I state my stance below.
I legit think this is an over-reaction to the bill, and I'm no fan of the Liberals.
We have to start from the point that Canada is different from the United States. Canada has a smaller population, economy and hence has less influence. In addition to that the cultural similarities between the countries mean that "Canadian culture" has less influence within Canada itself.
The CRTC, is an organization dedicated for the promotion of Canadian cultural media which entails a certain amount of demotion of American cultural media. From the start, it was mean to safeguard Canadian media production. As said in the article, it was first introduced for radio and television airwaves, now it's the 21st century, and it's finally coming to the internet. As such, as stated in the article, streaming companies need to comply and now need to promote Canadian content. In this new age this expansion of provision serves to protect Canadian media production.
Also, unlike the U.S., we have campaign regulation and as such political content will be regulated. Again this is just the expansion of the rules to a new domain. We have minimum broadcast laws for parties and coverage rules for elections, again this is just extending it to the internet. And as always Canada is different to the United States.
The only issue I have is user generated content. This is a bit of a wild card. This is because both a random person and a news organization produce user-generated content on websites such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, but one will be subject to CRTC rules while the other is not. I'm almost certain this realization is the reason for the clause's removal. Besides, we have a separate and independent supreme court. If the regulation violates the Charter rights of people than the courts will protect people. What's important here is that corporations aren't people, so they should not have Charter rights. CRTC has existed to regulate corporations. This should have been taught in civics class.
I hope you understand what I'm saying. If you have questions, just ask or read up on Canadian government websites and history.
It looks good. It needs to include operating costs though.