#prime!sonix | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

daniloqp · 3 years

Text

47 Best Amazon Prime Day Deals for $50 or Less (Day 2)

https://theministerofcapitalism.com/blog/47-best-amazon-prime-day-deals-for-50-or-less-day-2/

Amazon Prime Day can be overwhelming if you don’t have a few products in mind you’ve been waiting to shop for. To help you avoid a large bill and a bunch of things you don’t really need, we’ve compiled our favorite Prime Day deals under $50.

Note: We regularly update articles and strike through items that sell out or rise in price as of publishing, and we calculate discounts based on recent product pricing or average price, not MSRP. Be sure to check discounts for yourself. Our picks come from research and our extensive experience reviewing products. You’ll need an Amazon Prime subscription to get most of these deals.

Updated Tuesday: We’ve fixed prices, crossed out expired deals, added a Petcube camera, Civilization VI, an Animal Crossing controller, a cold-brew coffee maker, the YubiKey, a wireless charger, and a tumbler.

WIRED’s Prime Day Stories

If you buy something using links in our stories, we may earn a commission. This helps support our journalism. Learn more.

Tech Accessory Deals

Need a new iPhone 12 case? Or a Pixel case? We’ve rounded up our favorites in our Best iPhone 12 Cases and Accessories and Best Pixel guides.

Totallee case.

Photograph: Totallee

Use code LVQ6Q52Y at checkout to see the discount. These are some of the thinnest cases around, so if you value a slim form for your iPhone 12 or iPhone 12 Pro over the best protection, this is your solution. (It is not MagSafe compatible, but the iPhone will still do a decent job of sticking to MagSafe accessories.) All of Totallee’s cases are 40 percent off if you use the same code, so you can get the same slim protection for iPhones, Pixel phones, and Samsung phones.

Spigen makes affordable yet well-built cases, and these are some of your cheapest options if you want a MagSafe case. That is, there is a ring of magnets on the inner lining of the case. It will let you use the iPhone 12 range’s new magnetic accessory system to attach various items to the back of the phone, like wallets, chargers, camera mounts, PopSockets, and more. This case will also fit the iPhone 12 Pro. The iPhone 12 Pro Max version is also on sale.

If you have an iPhone from the latest range (iPhone 12, 12 Pro, 12 Pro Max, or 12 Mini), you can magnetically attach it to this mount and elevate your iPhone on your desk or nightstand. It’ll look like it’s floating! We really like it, though the base could stand to be heavier. Even better, if you buy Sonix’s MagSafe wireless charger (also on sale for $24 ($6 off), you can attach it to the back and charge your iPhone while it’s mounted. Truly, a wire-free experience.

This wireless charger will work fine for any phone that supports wireless charging, but it’s an especially good option if you have a Pixel phone with wireless charging (not all Pixels have it). It’s our favorite wireless charger for nightstands (seriously). Plop your phone on it and you’ll be treated to an interface that resembles a smart display. You can have it cycle through your favorite albums from Google Photos, get easy access to Google Assistant, and have your phone screen brighten up in a warm tone right before your alarm goes off to slowly pull you out of sleep.

This is our favorite wireless charging stand. The fabric material and color options make it one of the prettiest chargers around, important if you’re going for an aesthetic. The steel base doesn’t let it slide around when you put your phone on it, and it can charge your phone in landscape or portrait orientation. It emits a faint glow on the back when it’s charging, but I never found it distracting.

Lume Cube Panel Mini

Photograph: Lume Cube

If the built-in webcam in your laptop is struggling to expose your face, adding more light might be the best solution. The Panel Mini is a credit-card-sized LED video light. Just turn it on, point it at your face, and you’ll see a big difference in the quality of your video feed. You can adjust color temperature and brightness, and it can be mounted to a DSLR too. The only downside is the battery life; don’t expect it to run for more than two hours.

Phone too big? If it’s constantly fumbling out of your hands, try using a PopSocket grip. It attaches to the rear, and then you pop the grip out of the socket. It makes it easier to hold and use your large-screen phone with one hand. It’s one of the best gadgets under $20.

Use this security key in conjunction with two-factor authentication to keep your privacy intact. You can plug it in the USB-A port of your computer and tap the key to authorize a login attempt. It also has NFC and can work with your phone to authenticate. It’s compatible with lots of programs, but not all of them; check out our Yubikey guide for more details.

Kitchen and Home Deals

Looking for more of our recommendations for your kitchen or home? Read our guides to the Essential Pans for Your Kitchen, Best Chef’s Knives, and Best Couches for more.

Stasher reusable bags.

Photograph: Amazon

The WIRED staff loves Stasher bags. They’re better for the environment than single-use ziplock bags, and they’re dishwasher-friendly. You can also get the sandwich size for $8 ($4 off) and the snack bag for $7 ($3 off).

The Hum (9/10, WIRED Recommends) is our top electric toothbrush, and it’s a steal at this price. It’s lightweight, plus it connects to a companion app that gives you insights into your brushing habits and can even show the spots you regularly miss. (You don’t need to open the app to have it start tracking.) This is the version that takes two AAA batteries, but the rechargeable model is also on sale. It comes with two refill heads, and a subscription to get more replacement heads will set you back $5 every three months.

If you don’t have a big family to cook for, this 3-quart pressure cooker might be a good bet. Instant Pots make cooking easy, as you can use them for pressure cooking as well as slow cooking, plus sautéing, steaming, or even for making yogurt.

We prefer other types of coffee makers because they taste better and are less wasteful than single-use pods (even if they’re recyclable). But Keurigs are convenient, especially if you’re only drinking one cup a day. This one is small too, so it won’t take up your entire counter.

Primula Burke cold brew coffee maker

Photograph: Primula

Want cold brews instead? This Primula is our favorite cold-brew coffee maker. Drop coarse grounds into the mesh basket, snap it in place, and pour water through. Then, put it in the fridge, wait a full 24 hours, and voilà! You’ll have smooth-tasting coffee that’s not too bitter for the morning.

Clip the on-page coupon to save more, and you’ll see the full discount at checkout. These crunchy, spicy snacks are addictive, and this is the cheapest they’ve been in years. This deal was also available on Prime Day last year, and it was the only thing that I (Louryn) bought. The smaller bags are more wasteful, but they do prevent the chips from going stale, and they’re perfectly sized for a bedtime snack. This deal is ridiculous, but show us leniency. We’re hungry.

If you drink a ton of sparkling water, you may just want to start making your own. You’ll save money in the long run and won’t waste as much plastic. The Fizzi doesn’t need electricity to work, so you can use it anywhere, even camping.

If you or someone you know is about to have a baby, this is a nice kit to keep you stocked on some essentials. It includes a Snotsucker, little nail clippers and file, five tubes to help relieve gas, a silicone baby brush, and four hygiene filters.

Revlon One-Step Hair Dryer

Photograph: Revlon

Clip the coupon on the page to see the discount at checkout. This is our favorite blow-dry brush in our Best Hair Dryers guide. You can give yourself an at-home blow-out with this one tool, and it’ll only take minutes. It won’t work on all hair textures, so you may still need a flat iron to smooth out your hair.

Clip the coupon to see the discount at checkout. It’s cheap, and it works nicely to dry curls without disrupting their pattern. At 4 inches wide, the mouth of the dryer is larger than any other I’ve seen, but it’s still slim and light. That said, reviewer Medea Giordano wishes there were a medium speed setting, because the low setting is too low, and high can cause frizz on some hair—even with the diffuser. Shipping is temporarily delayed, but you can still get the deal price.

Water flossers are more environmentally friendly than disposable floss, and the price for this model has only dipped this low once before. The irrigation system and different tips help ensure that the spaces between your teeth get thoroughly cleaned.

Everyone should get a bird feeder. Getting to see your neighborhood critters up close is an absolute treat. We haven’t tried this particular feeder, but I (Medea) have used several with this type of design and they hold up pretty well. Just clean it often and check that the suction cups are secure.

This is perennially one of our favorite travel mugs. It has a cult following because these mugs keep drinks hot. Like hot hot. So you can pour yourself a cup of coffee or tea before you leave for work in the morning and it’ll still be hot when you get to the office. (Remember commutes?) We recommend letting it cool a bit before sealing it.

A lot of Legos are on sale, so it’s hard to pick just one. This set is currently $5 cheaper than the lowest price it’s ever been and will appeal to any Star Wars fan.

Smart Home Deals

These deals are great if you want to create a smart home, whether that’s by controlling lights, door locks, and robot cameras with your voice, or by having an easy way to stream your favorite shows. See our guides on our top smart speakers, smart displays, and streaming devices for more.

Echo Dot Kids Edition

Photograph: Amazon

The Echo Dot Kids Edition is almost the same as the standard 4th-gen Echo Dot, except it comes with some parental controls and a kid-friendly design. This deal also includes a year of Amazon Kids+ (formerly FreeTime Unlimited) content. After the first year, Amazon Kids+ is $3 per month, so make a note on your calendar if you plan to cancel. You can get it in a panda design too.

This isn’t an unusual deal, but the Streaming Stick Plus is still our favorite streaming device for most people. If you’re not happy with your current streaming setup, you’ll probably like this.

We prefer Roku overall, but this Fire Stick 4K is much improved from older models. You can watch all your favorite services (besides Vudu), but the menus are, unsurprisingly, geared heavily toward Amazon’s Prime content.

We think the Fire HD 8 is one of the best values for a tablet at its typical $90 price, so this is a no-brainer. It’s portable but still has a nice enough screen to comfortably watch movies. There are better tablets out there if your budget is larger.

What’s a smart home worth if you still can’t find your keys or the remote? Even with Apple’s recent AirTag launch, Tile is still one of our favorite ways to find all your stuff. This two-pack comes with both a Pro and a Slim tile. The Pro attaches to your keys and the Slim slides in your wallet, making it a perfect one-two combo.

WIRED reviewer Parker Hall calls the Dot “the greatest alarm clock ever.” You can easily check the time in the middle of the night, thanks to the forward-facing clock, and it can wake you up to your favorite seasonal playlists. The models without a clock are still useful, especially if you want to add Alexa to more rooms in your house without spending a fortune.

Pet Deals

We haven’t tried all of these particular pet products, but they come from well-known brands with high ratings. For our top picks, see our guides on cat and dog supplies and accessories, and read our tips for recently adopted pets.

Eufy 2K Pan and Tilt camera

Photograph: Eufy

This is one of the best security cameras for pet owners. You can use your smartphone to rotate the camera while you’re away from home, and the gadget also has built-in pet commands that can detect activity and automatically tell your cat to stop surfing the counters in your stead. (Getting your cat to listen is another matter entirely.) Just be aware that the company recently admitted it had a glitch that briefly allowed feeds to be seen by anyone (it has been patched).

This camera has frequently dipped to $40, so this isn’t a huge discount. Still, it’s an affordable way of monitoring your pet, whether you’re working in the other room or away from home. It has 1,080p video quality, can be mounted via magnets, and has night vision so you can see what they’re up to in the dark. You can also talk to them through the camera if they’re anxious.

This discount is applied at checkout. I’m a fan of Boots & Barkley products generally, and this bed is plush for comfy napping. The muted, stylish color scheme is also much better-looking than many other pet beds.

This discount is applied at checkout. Target’s cat scratch houses are ridiculously cute and often make the rounds on TikTok. This Surf Shop design is a perfect summertime addition for any felines (and owners!) who like to hang ten.

If you prefer a more conventional-looking scratching post—or just need to pepper your house with posts to protect your furniture—this Amazon Basics one is nearly 3 feet tall. That’s a lot of space for your kitty to climb.

Big dogs may prefer this soft pad over a walled-in bed so they can really stretch out. This one is machine washable.

This bed should suit cats and smaller dogs, as it has several sizes and a nice plushy interior. It also has a few different fabric and color options.

Gaming and Headphone Deals

Be sure to check out our guides on gaming keyboards, headsets, and mice, plus our favorite wireless headphones for more recommendations.

Jabra Elite 45h Headphones

Photograph: Jabra

The Razer Cynosa is another excellent entry-level gaming keyboard. It feels great to type on in everyday use, and it looks slick in any desktop setup. It features Razer’s signature Chroma lighting, so you can sync it up with other Razer peripherals with ease.

The Pulsefire Surge has been one of our favorite gaming mice for a while now. It’s straightforward, unassuming, does everything you need a wired gaming mouse to do, and doesn’t bog you down with too many buttons. Plus, it has lights.

The DeathAdder Essential has a spooky name, but it’s a very friendly and approachable little mouse. It’s another straightforward take on a gaming mouse—no frills, just reliable performance all around.

Who would’ve thought one of the most hotly anticipated games of 2020 would already be on sale for a mere $20? The developer’s older title, The Witcher 3, is actually more expensive. Cyberpunk was plagued with bugs and, well, a bad story, but if you’re interested in seeing what the world is like, it may be worth picking up at this price.

If none of the other mice are calling to you, this is another nicely priced option. We typically see this for $68, but it’s been around $50 for a while, so this is the best price we’ve seen as of late.

We’re still obsessed with Animal Crossing: New Horizons‘ aesthetic. If you are too, this deal is worth checking out. The wired Nintendo Switch controller is comfortable, which is important when you’re wandering around a virtual island for 12 hours at a time. It hasn’t sold for less. And look how cute it is!

This turn-based strategy game is so, so fun. The learning curve is basically a straight upwards line, but if the idea of playing a world leader, outmaneuvering your opponents, constructing world wonders, and managing resources over the course of many hours sounds like a good time, it’ll be right up your alley. This price is a steal.

SteelSeries Arctis 1

Photograph: Steelseries

The SteelSeries Arctis 1 are our favorite headphones for under $50, and this deal makes them even more worthwhile. This will work with the PS4, PS5, Xbox One, Series X/S, Switch, PC, and your phone. They’re well built and comfortable, plus the mic is removable.

Gaming headsets don’t have to be big, bulky, and expensive. The Cloud Stinger Core proves that. We’ve seen it at this discounted price a couple of times prior to Prime Day, but it’s still a solid deal. It provides rich, atmospheric sound and comes with an adjustable mic for clear comms when you’re coordinating with your teammates half a world away.

Despite Amazon’s misleading sticker price of $80, this headset hasn’t risen past $50 for months. Still, $40 is one of the best deals we’ve seen from a reliable brand.

The 45h are our favorite headphones under $100. They’re often discounted, but this is still the cheapest we’ve tracked in the last few months.

Outdoor Deals

We’re finally able to plan normal summer vacations again, and for you, that might include camping or road trips. Our Best Camping Gear guide has more options. Staying home? We have a how-to on making your backyard more fun.

Coleman four-person Sundome tent

Photograph: Coleman/Amazon

A good tent is essential for a camping trip, whether you’re planning a single night away or several. This is a pretty good price on a popular tent that can fit two people. It supposedly can be set up in just 10 minutes, and several Amazon reviews praise the excellent waterproofing.

The LifeStraw is a WIRED reader favorite. It’s good to stow away in your emergency supplies kit because it filters over 99.99 percent of bacteria (including E. coli, Salmonella), parasites (including Giardia and Cryptosporidium), and microplastics for up to 1,000 gallons of water, not to mention sand, dirt, and other impurities. You get two of them with this deal.

Coleman is a big name in outdoor products. These are the lanterns of all my childhood camping trips, and I’m not sure the design has changed since then—that’s a good thing. Even if you’re not planning on camping this summer, it’s not the worst idea to have a few lanterns around for emergencies when the power goes out.

WIRED writer Matt Jancer swears by these boxers for hikes and climbs. The material is made to be breathable and moisture-wicking, so you can sweat it up outdoors without feeling gross when there may not be access to a shower.

These vessels are handy to have around, and the price is right—they haven’t been this cheap since last November. The lid automatically seals itself when you aren’t pushing in the big Coffee Now button, and each tumbler can keep drinks hot for 12 hours and cold for up to five.

Eagle Creek made some of the absolute best packing cubes, perfect for chronic over-packers. Unfortunately, the company is closing down. If you travel frequently and don’t own these yet (or you just want a backup set), get ’em while you still can.

This game, also known as “yeet the bureet” in some WIRED staffer circles, is obnoxiously fun. It’s a hybrid of dodgeball and cards. The Extreme Outdoor version takes the original game and scales it up for the backyard. If you’ve ever wanted to chuck a gigantic, inflatable burrito at your friends or family members, look no further.

For being such a simple item, coolers can get pricey, so we’re glad to see a nice-sized one on sale. You could put this in the trunk for road trips, bring it to the beach, take it to games or other tailgating events, and have it handy for backyard barbecues.

Retailer Sale Pages

If you’d like to check more deals yourself, here are some links to sales going on this week.

WIRED’s Prime Day Stories

1-Year of WIRED for $30 $5!

Unlimited access to WIRED.com

Source link

0 notes

museofthemuses · 7 years

Photo

Few Of My Favorite..** by yagna featuring spitfire sunglasses ❤ liked on Polyvore

#polyvore #fashion #style #Daizy Shely #Mira Mikati #Guild Prime #Alexander McQueen #Mistura #Venessa Arizaga #Spitfire #Sonix #Versus #Guerlain #vintage #clothing

0 notes

debrahnesbit · 4 years

Text

The LawBytes Podcast, Episode 38: Debating the Broadcast Panel Report – A Conversation with BTLR Panel Chair Janet Yale

The release of the much-anticipated Broadcast and Telecommunications Legislative Review Panel report late last month sparked a torrent of discussion and debate. The 235 page report – often referred to as the BTLR or Yale Report – features 97 recommendations that covers telecom, broadcast, the future of the CBC, online harms, digital taxation, and a myriad of other issues. Janet Yale, the panel chair, joins the podcast this week to talk about the report. Our wide ranging conversation touches on the policy objectives of the panel, the news regulation concerns, net neutrality, consumer costs, and what may lie ahead for communications law reform.

The podcast can be downloaded here and is embedded below. The transcript is posted at the bottom of this post or can be accessed here. Subscribe to the podcast via Apple Podcast, Google Play, Spotify or the RSS feed. Updates on the podcast on Twitter at @Lawbytespod.

Show Notes:

Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review Panel

Credits:

CTV News, Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault on Licensing Requirements for Media CTV News, Guilbeault Walks Back Earlier Comments, Says Ottawa Won’t License News Outlets

Transcript:

LawBytes Podcast – Episode 38 transcript powered by Sonix—the best audio to text transcription service

LawBytes Podcast – Episode 38 was automatically transcribed by Sonix with the latest audio-to-text algorithms. This transcript may contain errors. Sonix is the best way to convert your audio to text in 2020.

Michael Geist: This is Law Bytes, a podcast with Michael Geist.

Evan Solomon: There is a concern that the panel wants to regulate international companies as well. So let me take an example of a controversial site like Breitbart. How would the government force a company like Breitbart? I don’t know. The New York Times, Mother Jones, The Daily Mail. How would they force those companies to comply with rules of Canadian content? Discoverability. And if they don’t comply, what happens? Will Canadians be blocked from accessing international sites?

Steven Guilbeault: I don’t think that’s what’s recommended in the report that that these sites be blocked in Canada. I’m frankly not sure I see what the big deal is.

Evan Solomon: So you said no to licence, and now you’re saying no to registration as well. Just so people know there’s a licence element. But it recommends that media content companies, all of themL websites, broadcasters, anyone that produces media content that’s in the report has to register and they’re subject to levies. Are you saying there’s no registration?

Steven Guilbeault: That’s a recommendation by this panel. In terms of what the bill will contain what we will ask the Netflix and Amazon Prime and Disneys of this world to contribute to in terms of Canadian cultural content, content and what tools, will we use. I can’t answer that because I seems like to me.

Evan Solomon: On Sunday on CTV’s Question Period, and you said, yeah, we’re gonna license media companies and organizations, will be licensed. That’s no big deal. What were you actually meaning.

Steven Guilbeault: What I’m saying is that the regulations that we will have will apply to companies that are operating in Canada just like our laws and regulations apply to any company’s.

Michael Geist: The release of the much anticipated broadcasting and telecommunications legislative review panel report late last month sparked a torrent of discussion and debate. The 235 page report, often referred to as the BTLR or Yale report, features 97 recommendations that covers telecom, broadcast, the future of the CBC, online harms, digital taxation, and a myriad of other issues. The report almost immediately hit the political spotlight since, as you just heard, Canadian Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault initially downplayed recommendations to regulate the delivery of online news and attempted to walk back some of his comments.

Michael Geist: I’ve been posting frequently on the report and its implications at my Web site at MichaelGeist.ca. I’m very grateful that Janet Yale, the panel chair, agreed to meet and come on the podcast. Janet has been a leader in the communications law field in Canada for many years, having worked at Telus, the Canadian Cable Television Association, the CRTC and the Consumers Association of Canada. Our wide ranging conversation touches on the policy objectives of the panel, the news regulation concerns, net neutrality, consumer costs, and a host of other issues.

Michael Geist: Janet, thanks so much for joining me on the podcast.

Janet Yale: It’s a pleasure to be here.

Michael Geist: OK. It’s really good of you to come on. As you know, I’ve got a lot to say. Got all of it positive about some of the report. And so to have you come on and talk about it. I think it is really fantastic. There has been a lot already and we’re recording this on on Tuesday, February the 4th. There’s been already a lot discussed. It’s come up in the House of Commons. I’ve got a bunch of issues I wanted to talk about respect to content, a little bit on process as well. But given that so much of the focus right now is on content, that’s where. And content recommendations, that’s what we’ll focus. I wanted to start, though, by giving you an opportunity to identify for those that are new to this a bit more about the panel and what it recommended.

Janet Yale: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to set the stage for the conversation. I know the content issues are of great interest to people, but I think you have to understand what we did in a broader context. So we were given the opportunity to review three pieces of legislation: the Telecom Act, the Broadcasting Act and the Radio Communication Act. And to make recommendations for legislative reform. And in that context, we had to think about, well, why does it matter to reform these three pieces of legislation? So we looked at it from the perspective of the individual, the user. We looked at it from the perspective of economic competitiveness and from the perspective of cultural policy and from an individual perspective. One of the most fundamental principles we state in the report, many times, is that everyone deserves a connected life, one that allows them through broadband connectivity, wireline, wireline or wireless to be able to connect to other people, to news and entertainment, and to enjoy the economic opportunities that are associated with having broadband connectivity. And there are a whole bunch of recommendations we don’t have to get into around how to ensure there is universal, affordable access to broadband connectivity.

Janet Yale: The second area is about the economy and the potential for economic transformation associated with advanced telecommunications networks in terms of new business models that may emerge, the ability of businesses to compete both domestically and internationally, leveraging advanced networks. And we have a whole bunch of recommendations around how to accelerate the rollout of advanced networks. So those are two big pieces.

Janet Yale: And then the third piece is the cultural policy piece, where we state that in a world of endless choices and voices, we want a place for Canadian voices, for Canadian perspectives, both in terms of news and entertainment. So we looked, given those three, the individual, the economic and the cultural and said, well, we have to embrace the fact that this is an open global market where people should be able to access content anywhere, from any place, on any device, on any platform, without restriction. However, we also said that there has to be a principle of fairness. So those service providers that are benefiting from operating in the Canadian market through advertising or subscription revenues must contribute on a like for like basis with those that are already contributing. And primarily, if you think about streaming services like Netflix, we said those who benefit through subscription revenues should invest in Canadian content while preserving freedom of expression online. So I would say at the highest level, that’s our framework.

Michael Geist: All right. That’s a good start. And I should note that I think it’s unfortunate that a lot of the really good recommendations around public participation, around access are being overshadowed, at least for the moment. But we’ll see how this whole plays. All these issues play out. And it certainly is in the realm of possibility one would hope that there will be an opportunity to resurface some of those and see that some of them go forward because it’s clear a lot of work went into it. I think there’s a lot of value there.

Michael Geist: That said, as we sit here today recording this, a lot of the focus, at least for the moment, is even on just a part of the broader cultural component, which has to do with news organizations. The Heritage minister last night called them news agencies, which isn’t a term that you use, but it’s one that he started using. And there has been a lot of concern about the prospect that the recommendations would capture and effectively regulate the news organizations. When we start by saying with your perspective on what you were trying to achieve and what you think the report says on that.

Janet Yale: Well, let me be clear at the outset, we do not recommend that journalism news organizations be licensed or regulated because we are emphatic in the principle of journalistic independence, enshrining that in the legislation. And moreover, enshrining the right in the Telecommunications Act to a free and open Internet. Because we embrace the open global market where people should be able to access any content they want, news or entertainment, from anywhere at anytime. So let me be really clear. We do not propose regulating news online. Having said that, we do recognize that there are platforms that are enabling the sharing of news without compensation. So if you think back to the days when people started streaming music without compensating the creators of the music. There was concern about how do we ensure appropriate compensation for the creators of content, that is the issue we focused on that those platforms that are enabling the sharing of news content from journalists, from news organizations without compensation should contribute and ensure that there is compensation for journalism. We were focusing on the compensation issue, not regulation of news online. And that’s very clear in our report.

Michael Geist: Ok. But if you’re if I’m a Reddit, let’s say where there is a lot of sharing of news you’re suggesting. And so they would qualify presumably as one of these news aggregators. They would be subject to a levy. They would be subject to some kind of registration as opposed to a license, I would think as part of this system.

Janet Yale: So one of the things we said is on a platform, technology neutral basis, that all media content undertakings are subject to exemption by the CRTC. And we’ll get to exemptions in a minute. All media content undertakings, including those that provide news content if it’s relevant for cultural policy purposes should register. So it’s not a gatekeeping licensing function where there’s an assessment as to whether or not what they’re proposing to do is appropriate or judging the content. It’s just a very simple registration scheme that would allow the commission to the extent that those platforms enable the sharing of media content, which includes news content, would report to the CRTC on the advertising or subscription revenues as the case may be. And the levy applied to support the production of news.

Michael Geist: So just, you know, for many people, I think of my kids or students, the younger generations, they often do access, of course, news through these kinds of sites. They ultimately end up, of course, at the underlying news site, but they use this as their filter to identify the kind of things they’re interested in. It seems to me that the the list of recommendations for these news aggregators includes, as you say, some sort of registration requirements or going to tell, let’s say, a Reddit or a Drudge Report or a range of other services that include this kind of content they’ve got to register. They’ve got to pay a levy into the Canadian system. They’ve got to report financial information. They’ve got to report readership information back to the CRTC. And they will be subject to the discoverability requirements where the CRTC is able to say. You’ve also got to include within this links to trusted news sites, Canadian news sites. We will determine what those are. And we will also tell you how to ensure that they are sufficiently prominent so people can find them.

Janet Yale: Well, there’s a lot packed into that. Let’s take it one piece at a time. I guess the real question is, is there a crisis in news? We think there is the traditional models to support news have fallen apart because of the flight of advertising and subscription revenues that used to be supporting print journalism and the collapse of community and local newspapers in both Anglophone and Francophone markets is very severe. So if you believe that there is a problem, which we do, then the question is how do we solve it? There are a couple of options that you can consider. We felt that those who are aggregating or enabling the sharing of media content, both entertainment and news, are benefiting from offering service to Canadians through advertising and subscription revenues. And it’s only appropriate, therefore, on a like for like basis with Canadian service providers that they make a contribution in some cases. It’s a direct investment, like with Netflix. In other cases where they’re not involved in the creation themselves of content like news aggregators, that the contribution then would be in the form of a levy. But if you’re playing in the Canadian market and benefiting from the Canadian market, then then we believe that you should make a contribution and that is while respecting freedom of expression. We’re not. And that’s where some of your question I think is different than, assumes something different than what we say in our report. We are not suggesting that any of these news aggregators need permission or authorization or any. There is complete editorial independence because for all of these sites, we are not suggesting anything that contradicts freedom of expression, interference with the nature of the content or anything that would in any way compromise journalistic independence. What we’re saying is simply that many people rely on those sites for their consumption of news without any compensation to the news organizations and the journalists that create that content. And that’s not fair.

Michael Geist: I mean, you perhaps for another day we can have the debate about the compensation model because of course, for those sites, the links to go back to the underlying sites and those sites tend to be ad based models in terms of how they generate revenue or paywalls. And this introduces them to the service and then they may subscribe. So I’m not totally sure that it’s true that there isn’t any compensation along the way. But but that’s not really the crux here. I mean, the crux here is I’ve haven’t heard you say no to that list that I provided in terms of how these sites get regulated in effect. You’re simply saying it’s it’s a worthwhile trade off from a financial perspective to help. And effectively, it sounds like you’re arguing that the discoverability requirements, having a regulator say you’ve got to include links to these sites. We’re gonna determine what they are and we’re going to tell you how prominent they are is somehow not interfering with their expression.

Janet Yale: I guess it depends how you define regulation. I you know, regulation isn’t gatekeeping. Regulation isn’t interfering with journalistic independence. And we say countless times in the report that we want more diverse, more sources of news and information online and that freedom of expression and journalistic independence is fundamental to a vibrant, healthy democracy. And the best protection against misinformation and fake news is more creation of accurate, trusted and reliable sources of news. So I just want to be crystal clear, because this isn’t about controlling what news people get, when they get it, and how they get it.

Janet Yale: Having said that, in the case of news, we talk about the fact that most Canadian news sources are Canadian. Most of the content on Canadian news sites is the news site is coming from Canadian sources. That’s why we say where are these sites, where there is editorial control of the content, they’re not subject to these obligations in terms of either a levy or a discoverability. It’s dealing with sites like Facebook that are global platforms that enable the sharing of content from multiple sources. And how do we ensure that among the choices available to Canadians are Canadian stories and Canadian choices and Canadian perspectives? So I keep coming back to this notion that in a world of endless choices and voices, we want to ensure that there are Canadian choices and both in terms of entertainment and in terms of local, regional and national news and a Canadian perspective on international news. All we’re saying is there should be a place for those Canadian choices and the CRTC should be able to ensure that those choices are discoverable.

Michael Geist: I mean, it sounds like we’re at the same place in terms of what you’re doing, but obviously a different perspective on or at least providing your perspective on why you’re doing it. One quick thing before I move on, though. You know, to what extent do you think when, as you were crafting these kinds of recommendations and this thinking, essentially you have Facebook sort of in your mind and so you’re thinking Facebook has become such an important player in this, generating a lot of ad revenue. We’ve got to capture this. And then once it comes out, you get this myriad, as you say, there’s almost endless voices of people who point to all these other sites and services that say, hey, I do that, too. And effectively, what you’re saying is that you’re going to put these same kinds of obligations on me subject, of course, the CRTC potentially saying we’re going to exempt.

Janet Yale: Well, not potentially. I think the issue that that we really focused on was all different sizes and manners of undertakings. And that’s why we’re very explicit in our recommendations that the CRTC has to decide what classes of media content undertakings to exempt from regulation, either based on their specialty format, news, or their size of revenues. So the idea is that if it’s a small undertaking, then there’s going to be a revenue threshold below with which the commission is going to say these don’t apply to you as they do today in the traditional licensed context. So relevance for cultural policy purposes is a judgment call that the CRTC has done for years and is well equipped to do going forward. So I think that concerns that small media organizations are going to be subject to these obligations is not accurate. Having said that, we want those organizations to be able to thrive in a world where it’s harder and harder to get advertising or subscription revenues relative to the big platform providers. So it may well be in their interests to register so that they would be eligible for the financial support that’s going to come from the big platform providers. And that will be their call to make. That will be their call to make.

Michael Geist: You mentioned like for like. And that comes up and you’ve mentioned that a lot of frankly, a lot of people in the debate talk about it. And I recognize for a lot of people. They say, well, I watched television programs on television, now I watch it on Netflix. It’s like for like. As you may know, I’ve I’ve argued that the that system and around the issue of like for like has been premised largely on broadcasters and broadcast distributors enjoying a whole range of regulatory advantages. So we had for many years for investment restrictions in terms of keeping some certain competitors out, there must carry rules that ensure that certain of your channels get included even in some of the basic packages, they’re simultaneous substitution we just endured a Super Bowl watching Canadian commercials rather the U.S. commercials. People are pretty familiar with that. And that’s worth hundreds of millions of dollars and apparently years of litigation to ensure. So I guess my question is, what are the what are the like for like advantages that Netflix has here? I know what the broadcasters and broadcast distributors have and why they pay into the system having all those advantages. What are the advantages that Netflix has that makes this a like for like situation?

Janet Yale: Well, we start from the premise that our recommendations accept and enshrine the fact that this is an open global marketplace where people from the user perspective should have access to any content they want from wherever they want, whenever they want, on any platform of their choosing. So the advantages that these foreign streaming services have is that they benefit from operating in the Canadian market without any obligations. So what we’re saying like for like means that if you are from subscription or advertising revenues from operating in Canada, benefiting from participation in the Canadian market, then you should make an appropriate contribution to the support of Canadian content. We also recognize that for the existing broadcasters that their business models are challenged because the traditional model is under threat with the decline in subscriptions for cable companies and the loss of advertising revenues by traditional broadcasters. And we’ve acknowledged that that regulatory regime for the existing licensees should also be made more flexible. And we have some specific recommendations to give them more flexibility to adapt their business models. So we’re not getting into business models. We’re getting into like for like from a contribution to Canadian cultural policy perspective.

Sure, and certainly I recognize the idea is that everybody can the idea of the report is that everybody contributes. Obviously, my point was that the reason for those contributions for broadcasters and broadcast distributors came from what I see essentially as a regulatory quid pro quo, a series of regulatory advantages and so you pay into the system. I basically thought I heard you say that what Netflix gets is the ability is the benefit of being able to express itself in a free and democratic society. And on that basis, they ought to contribute in that. That strikes me as pretty problematic if that’s the position saying, well, you operate here, we allow you to express yourself and so you need to contribute.

Janet Yale: I would characterize this situation quite differently. I would say that that the market, the traditional model was a closed system where you could only operate in Canada if you were Canadian owned and controlled and had a Canadian licence. And what we’re saying is that model has to be adapted were sort of between two worlds where that traditional system exists, along with a new system where through broadband connectivity, people are users are able to access. And I think it’s great that they have all these new choices from foreign streaming services that are offering them content. That’s very appealing. But and the but is that they’re generating massive amounts of subscription and advertising revenues with no contribution back. So extracting value from the Canadian market with no contribution back to cultural policy, if you believe that it’s important for there to be Canadian choices and perspectives, then like for like matters. It’s an it’s a values issue for us.

Michael Geist: Well, I think there there might be a number of ways to achieve the cultural goals that you have without saying that you’ve got to regulate in the same way. Are there other areas that you can think of where we say the mere fact that you are operating in the market or benefiting from the market is such that you’ve now got to make this contribution into what you’re describing as a system?

Janet Yale: As I said, it’s not a closed system anymore. It’s an open global market. And we’re embracing that and saying that it creates tremendous benefits for consumers and businesses. And so this isn’t about restricting access to content and providers. It’s about embracing it and saying that in this new open, borderless world, what is the right mechanism? What is the right way to ensure that those who benefit from operating in the Canadian market make an appropriate contribution? There are all kinds of commercial laws that apply to entities, whether or not they have a place of business in Canada. If you think about consumer protection rules and so on, this isn’t a unique proposition. What’s happened up until now is that the Internet has been outside the scope of cultural policy, and we’re saying that since most people now and more and more people are accessing their content, news and entertainment via the Internet, via the online world, let’s embrace it. But ensure that, as I say, in that world of endless choices, there are Canadian choices for people to choose from without restricting in any way freedom of expression or the ability to access whatever content people want from wherever they want it.

Janet Yale: Ok, we’ll agree to disagree. Probably not for the first time in that part, because it seems to me no one no one is saying that that Facebook and Google aren’t subject to Canadian law, as they clearly are and they have been. The issue is, as are many other companies. The question of course, the question to me is whether or not we also layer in this mandated contribution and registration requirements for some of these kinds of companies in ways that we don’t typically do for someone merely because they happen to be selling a product or have users in Canada.

Janet Yale: And we were very clear on what we’re not capturing. So we are not dealing with platform providers like Google, like Amazon that are not involved in the distribution of media content. So to your point, we were very conscious of the overreach issue and we focused really on what is relevant for cultural policy purposes and made a very clear distinction between news on the one hand and information on the other. And we’re very explicit that people doing search and navigation online that is not caught by our definitions and would not at all be subject to the proposed regime,.

Michael Geist: Although the though those companies obviously still have any number of different activities that are captured.

Janet Yale: That’s exactly the point. We differentiated by activity, not by provider. And so the activities that are relevant are the ones we’ve described. And the purpose for doing that was to recognize that business models may evolve and different actors may be involved in more than one activity, some of which are relevant for cultural policy purposes. And others that or not. And that’s totally fine. And we don’t try to restrict what business models, different organizations may want to offer today or into the future.

Michael Geist: All of this comes at a time when there’s a lot of affordability related concerns, certainly for the Internet and otherwise. You argued, I think in your opening press conference, that the panel believes there would be no additional costs for consumers. People generally argue that where you layer in this new kind of regulation, I assume in your in an earlier lifetime, back when I worked for Telus, you probably were making those kinds of arguments around telecom regulation. But there’s that argument the consumer ultimately pays. Did you do economic analysis about what the costs would be or did you speak to different providers and say if we if we put in this kind of system, what would be the cost implications?

Janet Yale: Let me come at that question from the perspective of of the user. One of the things that had been discussed a lot leading up to our deliberations was this idea of imposing a tax, a direct tax on the Internet to support Canadian content. And we rejected that very explicitly because we were very conscious of making sure that access to, and affordability of, broadband service means that there should be a no additional costs to consumers from whatever we proposed. We were very explicit about that. And in fact in the Telecom Act objectives, we recommend that there be right to universal affordable access to broadband connectivity wherever you live in Canada and ask the government to step up and provide it where there is no economic case for the private sector to do that. So where the private sector feels that that’s not economic for them to do? Absolutely. It’s not about passing that cost down to consumers, about the government stepping up and ensuring that everybody has broadband access. We do recognize the differentiation between carriage and content. So in terms of broadband, where there’s no economic case, the government should step in. But we also suggests that all telecommunication service providers, including Internet service providers as part of their costs of doing business, contribute to the CRTC Broadband Fund, whose purpose at $750 million is to extend broadband connectivity.

Janet Yale: So we’ve gone, in our view, to great lengths to ensure that the costs associated with this would not be borne by consumers. So if you think of Netflix on the content side, what we’ve said is they are not we are not adding the Netflix tax. We are saying that Netflix should invest a percentage of their existing very large programming budgets in the production of Canadian content. So again, there should be no increase in costs to consumers. We have a lot of recommendations overall on issues of affordability and what to do to make sure that services are affordable to to consumers and how to address particularly disadvantaged groups in terms of the CRTC having a broader role to monitor the state of competition, address systemic barriers to competition, address issues of affordability. So we’ve gone to great lengths to ensure that this would not result in increased costs to consumers. I’ve given you a little bit of an overview of how many different places it comes up in our report.

Michael Geist: Fair enough. I mean, surely the the fact that you decided not to move forward with an ISP tax, I think is one of most commendable aspects of the report. And there was obviously some pressure to to do that. Although, you know, given that the prime minister’s made it clear a number of occasions, that’s not something the government wanted to do. I think it’s good to see the panels, I think consistent with that. I think it’s the right decision to make as well for the reasons you’ve just articulated.

Michael Geist: I mean, I was more focused on for any number of the media content, which includes news. where we are moving more towards fee based models and the affordability of someone being able to subscribe to multiple services or even subscribe to multiple news organizations as they move towards paywalls is an issue I think that we ought to be sensitive to. And it does strike me that if you put in all of these kinds of requirements on many of these kinds of both and be of media organizations as broadly defined as you do it, surely there is a cost involved?

Janet Yale: Well, I think I would say two things. First of all, for the streaming services. It’s an investment requirement, not a tax. And they are spending huge budgets producing content. The problem is the content they’re producing is service productions where the key creative talent is not Canadian. So that should not result in increased costs to consumers. Period. With respect to the levees that we’ve recommended for aggregators and sharers. The thing to keep in mind is there’s a much larger base of contributors when you bring in the aggregators and sharers from the Internet. So the CRTC will have to figure out what’s the appropriate percentage that is required from a levy perspective in order to ensure, as I’ve said before, that there are Canadian choices when it comes to entertainment and that journalists are compensated for the use of their works and and whether or not that’s an appropriate thing we think compensation for journalism and news organizations that produce news is appropriate and there may be a small levy that is imposed just like there is on cable companies today to support Canadian content. But as I say, there is such a large base, the CRTC will have to determine what is the appropriate amount that is required to support these policy objectives.

Michael Geist: I mean, yes, I understand that’s the CRTC will determine that. I guess my point is that ultimately consumers are going to pay that. There is a cost there. The suggestion that you made in the press conference that we don’t believe these costs are going to be passed on to consumers. It’s tough to do. Tough for me to see how you concluded that. That’s why I asked, well, did you do economic analysis, at least across to some players?

Janet Yale: Well, of course, we did economic analysis based on the size of the market and what it’s likely to be. And as I say, there are publicly available information on how much money is being generated through advertising and subscription revenues in Canada, both from curators, aggregators and sharers. And we made sure that that there would be money in the system that would address the policy objectives. But of course, it you know, that’s right in the heart of the CRTC’s mandate to determine. The other thing I would note is that the costs of the CRTC, the costs of the CRTC are covered by the fees paid by the participants. And so one of the things we’ve said and recognize, of course, is that there is a need for a re-imagined role for the CRTC and the CRTC of course in order to administer this roadmap we’ve articulated, will have to have an expanded role and mandate and we expect the participants to cover those costs and those should not be passed on to consumers. They’re part of the costs of doing business in Canada.

Michael Geist: Let me let me try to hit on a few issues quickly. There’s an emphasis on net neutrality. It came up in the government’s direction to the panel as well. And I think you took that seriously. But when I think of net neutrality, it is largely my mind about stopping self-interested intermediaries, ISPs from influencing what Internet users can access or services they use. You have any concerns that the recommendations you have could be viewed as inconsistent with some of those net neutrality principles, with the CRTC effectively acting as the intermediary when it when it gets into, for example, into the discoverability requirements, it is beginning to insert choices about what people can or see when they access services.

Janet Yale: I would fundamentally disagree that that this has in any way interferes with the principle of net neutrality. If you read that chapter in our report, we reaffirm the commitment to a free and open Internet. And in fact, recommending that that right be safeguarded by enshrining an objective in the Telecommunications Act explicitly to safeguard open access to the Internet. So we in many places talk about how fundamental it is that users have the right via their Internet service to access any and all content from wherever they want, whenever they want. So I fundamentally believe that we have enshrined in our recommendations the right to a free and open Internet and the principle of net neutrality as is currently embodied in the Telecom Act.

Michael Geist: And that principle which focuses on not influencing the content or meaning of communications. Your view is that putting in a discoverability requirement, let’s say, on a news aggregator saying you must include links to the sites that I’ve identified and here’s how prominent they have to be doesn’t influence the content or meaning of that content or the communication?

Janet Yale: The CRTC is obviously going to decide what prominence, what discoverability means. I think in a world, as I’ve said, of endless choices and voices, it’s one thing to create the content. It’s another thing for people to be able to find it. We’re not telling people what to see and when to see it. What we’re saying is if you’re going to create Canadian content and news and entertainment, then people should. If they won’t be able to find it. So it’s not about restricting their choices, it’s about ensuring and with massive amounts of content that it’s findable. And I don’t believe that that’s inconsistent with the principle of net neutrality.

Michael Geist: I mean, speaking of discoverability, it comes up a lot. The panel states that, I quote, “A majority of consumers have said they have difficulty finding content they want to watch”. I took a look at the citations for that statement. Candidly, neither of them really make the case that there is a discoverability problem for Canadian content. But it’s entirely possible that you had other evidence along those lines. I was wondering if you did.

Janet Yale: I think, you know, our job, as I’ve said, is to create the legislative framework and regulatory roadmap. And the principle was that those who benefit from operating in the Canadian market should have both requirements to invest in Canadian content and ensure that that content is discoverable, meaning people can find it. And so how that should be done will be something that’s very much in the sweet spot of the regulator to decide. We didn’t get into the specifics of what does prominence mean, what does being able to find something mean. I think this is territory that is incredibly important for the CRTC to think about in a way that preserves, as we’ve discussed, freedom of expression and the ability to watch whatever content anybody wants from wherever they want, whenever they want. And so those requirements will depend on the nature of the service and the decisions of the CRTC.

Michael Geist: Right. But OK, I get that. I get what you’re trying to achieve. I guess the question for me was, is there. Did you uncover a specific problem and discovering this stuff? When I go on Netflix and I search for Canada or Canadian, it provides you with a whole suite of Canadian movies and television shows.

Janet Yale: And yet so sorry. From. From the perspective of finding Canadian content. You’re right that you have to look in the catalogue and see things that are earmarked as Canadian, but they’re not blended into the catalog of other categories of content that may be available. So is that enough that the catalog, if you say I only want Canadian irrespective of the category I can find it, that may be good enough. Is it better if there’s other ways to showcase and make prominent Canadian content? When you log in to Netflix, you know that based on your previous viewing preferences, they suggest content that may be of interest to you. Are they suggesting or promoting ones that may be Canadian? Should that be one of the choices that’s available to you to choose from, not to dictate that you watch it? Those are the kinds of questions that I think it’s appropriate for the CRTC to consider.

Michael Geist: Sure. Well, one last time. Was there evidence that that is a problem right now? When I started watching Schitt’s Creek on Netflix, suddenly Workin’ Moms and some of the other Canadian shows that it has did start appearing as shows I might like. Perhaps the algorithm recognizing I’m starting to watch Canadian shows. If I search for Canadian shows, I get lots of options. And if I start watching lots of those, and I did this is an experiment some time ago, the algorithm started recommending it more and more. So I guess the question is, is did you have evidence that this was a problem for people finding Cancon?

Janet Yale: Certainly we heard from producers that they feel that their content is hard to find and Netflix isn’t, as you know, the only streaming service. So in a future forward framework, we have to anticipate not just deal with the problems of today, but deal with the multitude of streaming services that are going to come and the complexity of the business models that may emerge. So discoverability is one way to ensure that people can find Canadian choices. And what those specific requirements are will be determined based on the CRTC assessing in a public hearing context, what problems individual users are having with respect to their their choices.

Michael Geist: Two last substantive questions and then just a little bit on process. The panel calls really for a major overhaul, obviously of Canadian content production. You’ve talked about key creative personnel and the like, but you sidestepped the question of what constitutes Cancon itself. And that’s an issue that’s come up for some time. Netflix is clearly investing huge amounts of money on production in Canada, this foreign location and service based production, which is viewed by some as problematic because it increases the costs of production and it doesn’t address Cancon per say. But when you take a look at what’s being produced under the guise of. Being Cancon, frankly, much of the stuff, whether it’s in co-productions or otherwise, is indistinguishable from the foreign location service production. Not all, there’s lot there’s certainly stuff that is, you know, we would identify as Canadian, but some stuff doesn’t qualify. Some stuff that does doesn’t feel that way. Why does the panel not get into any of those issues at all?

Janet Yale: I think it’s a great question as to where did our mandate with respect to legislative and regulatory reform begin and end, because at the end of the day, our job was legislative reform and ensuring that the legislation gave the regulator the powers and the toolkit it needed to address the issues. In the case of Cancon, it’s something that is really at the sweet spot at the heart of the CRTC is cultural policy mandate and is something that may change over time. And so we really felt it wasn’t appropriate for us to address it unless there were gaps in the legislative framework in terms of the ability of the CRTC to say what is and isn’t Canadian content. We felt there was no legislative or regulatory gap to address, but we do make it clear that service productions are different than Canadian productions, and we embrace the notion that these streaming services are spending lots of money in Canada, creating jobs, stimulating the economy. That’s fantastic. But that has nothing to do with cultural policy with respect to Canadian content. The key creative positions must be held by Canadians and the CRTC is the right place to make the determination as to what are the specific requirements for Canadian content over time.

Michael Geist: But we recognize that when Netflix funds on an exclusive basis Trailer Park Boys series or a film in Quebec where that meets all of those requirements that you just stated, the key creative personnel are Canadian. But it is still not treated as Cancon because the producer in this case is not Canadian. I can understand why there people would look at this and say, how is this system working to achieve the goals that you just identified?

Janet Yale: And so some of the recommendations we’ve made would enable with the registration system for those rules to be adapted to it, to allow those productions if the key creative positions are Canadian to qualify as Canadian. Some of the limitations that you’re referring to flowed from the limitations of the Broadcasting Act, and that was one of the principles behind our recommendations for reform.

Michael Geist: So that part Cancon you can address, but not the broader parts, because outside the mandate. You can appreciate that it’s not quite a slippery slope, but it’s tough to know exactly where you land to say this is the dividing line of what you can address and not address, because clearly you get into a lot of issues that one might have said, I’m surprised the panel was sounding off on this particular issue or issuing recommendations on.

Janet Yale: Fair enough. We made lots of choices about where to focus our attention and we felt that this one was most appropriately addressed by the CRTC.

Michael Geist: I mean, one last of one last issue that you highlighted was the liability for sites, which is one that won’t one might say is outside the pure broadcast side where there would be liability for failure to remove third party content that causes harm. The new trade agreement between Canada, U.S. and Mexico seems to have a provision that explicitly prohibits that kind of approach. It’s drawn from U.S. law. So I’m wondering, was there trade analysis done or did you just feel that the recommendations will fall where they may and if trade law or trade obligations don’t allow the government to implement the recommendation, that’s not our issue.

Janet Yale: Well, I think one of the reasons we didn’t get specific on what the legislative reform should be in relation to harmful content, whether of an individual or social harm perspective, was because, first of all, they go beyond the scope of the three pieces of legislation that we were reviewing. And, you know, the question of the rights and responsibilities of digital intermediaries for the accuracy of their information is a really significant question that, strictly speaking, wasn’t within our jurisdiction to recommend. But there are different models emerging globally for how to address these issues. And all we’ve done is recommend that the government consult internationally on the best approach, and that the approach should be to introduce legislation that clarifies the liability of intermediaries for harmful content as opposed to asserting that they must take down this content. We’re not saying what the outcome should be. We’re saying there needs to be legislative clarification and that those legislative provisions obviously would have to comply with international trade agreements. So it’s more about the legislative uncertainty than what the specific choices should be for legislation.

Michael Geist: Ok, that’s a good answer. Let me close with a couple of process questions. You’ll recall that after the public submission period closed a year or so ago. The panel decided not to publish the submissions until about a year, half a year later, rather, once you published your first interim report. I launched access to information requests and there were some organizations that allowed for that information to be made available, others did not. When I saw what they put forward, I couldn’t quite understand what the objection was, but on their part, I guess I could never quite understand what the objection was on your part, though, from a panel perspective, because it certainly seemed to me as part of the description for people submitting and I should note I was one of the people that did submit and had a chance to meet with the panel. It seemed clear that that these were going to be made public and I took people by surprise. I think that there was this lengthy delay.

Janet Yale: And we were kind of surprised by the reaction, to be honest, because these submissions were not made in confidence to us. So we said many times that if people want to publish their submissions, go ahead. It’s not we’re not saying they’re submitted in confidence. And what we wanted was time to digest the submissions and in our what we heard report make the submissions public at the same time as what we heard. That was it.

Michael Geist: You might have been surprised people decided not to make their submissions available, but why did you not simply take the position that they’ve been submitted? It’s a public process. We’re gonna make them available.

Michael Geist: We just wanted time to digest them. And we made it clear from the outset that when we issued our what we heard report, we would make them public. And we did coincident with the release of what we heard, that was a call we made. It wasn’t to keep them secret or confidential for a long period of time. We just wanted time to digest the submissions, but encourage those who wanted to make them public to do so right away.

Michael Geist: One of your panel members, Hank Intven resigned midway through the process, roughly midway. I suppose it left you with no panel members west of Toronto, I believe once once Hank stepped off. What impact did the resignation have do you think, on the panel’s work, the deliberations, etc.?

Janet Yale: Well, in terms of how people were chosen in the first place. I think you’ll have to talk to the government about that, because I wasn’t involved in the selection of panel members initially. I was pleased to be asked to chair the panel and was delighted to do that. As to who was picked and why they were picked that wasn’t my call to make. In terms of Hank’s decision to resign from the panel. the timing of that was actually a year into the process, right at the end of our consultation, long consultation process and review of the submissions and before we started our deliberations. So that was a very clear demarcation point, which meant that he was not at all involved in our deliberations and the recommendations that are contained in the report. So there was no impact, therefore, on the process of our deliberations and the final report,.

Michael Geist: Although it did mean, of course, that an important voice as part of that process then wasn’t part of the deliberations.

Janet Yale: But, you know, that was his choice. This was his choice to make.

Michael Geist: Fair enough. All right. We’ll try to wrap up. You identified some some high priority short term issues. Digital sales tax would be one of them. How do you see things unfolding if you had a crystal ball over the coming year?

Janet Yale: Well, let me start by reiterating the three recommendations that we called on for urgent relief. The first was the expedited rollout of funding for broadband expansion because of how important that is. The second was the application of HST to foreign streaming services, not a digital tax, just HST. And the third was to bring media content undertakings like Netflix into the regulatory scheme so that they would be required to invest in media content, in Canadian content. And in terms of where I think we’ll be for a year from now. I’m a bit of an optimist and I’m very encouraged by the fact that the mandate letters for both ministers made implementation of the recommendations of our report a high priority. So given the urgency of the situation, I think a year from now we’ll see some new legislation given that we say in our report it’s time to act. I’m cautiously optimistic that a year from now we’ll see some of our recommendations in legislation.

Michael Geist: We’ll see. I mean, it’s certainly going to be, I think, an interesting debate unfold over the coming year. And you’re right, I think there are some issues the government signalled that they’re going to move on. The tax one would be a good example of that. Well you’ve been in the public eye a lot over the last few days and sometimes people applauding, sometimes people criticizing. But it’s really good of you to come in and unpack some of these issues. Thanks so much for joining me on the podcast.

Janet Yale: It was my pleasure. I had a really good time. Thank you.

Michael Geist: That’s the Law Bytes podcast for this week. If you have comments suggestions or other feedback, write to lawbytes.com. That’s lawbytes at pobox.com. Follow the podcast on Twitter at @lawbytespod or Michael Geist at @mgeist. You can download the latest episodes from my Web site at Michaelgeist.ca or subscribe via RSS, at Apple podcast, Google, or Spotify. The LawBytes Podcast is produced by Gerardo LeBron Laboy. Music by the Laboy brothers: Gerardo and Jose LeBron Laboy. Credit information for the clips featured in this podcast can be found in the show notes for this episode at Michaelgeist.ca. I’m Michael Geist. Thanks for listening and see you next time.

Quickly and accurately convert audio to text with Sonix.

Sonix uses cutting-edge artificial intelligence to convert your mp3 files to text.

Thousands of researchers and podcasters use Sonix to automatically transcribe their audio files (*.mp3). Easily convert your mp3 file to text or docx to make your media content more accessible to listeners.

Sonix is the best online audio transcription software in 2020—it’s fast, easy, and affordable.

If you are looking for a great way to convert your mp3 to text, try Sonix today.

(function(s,o,n,i,x) { if(s[n])return;s[n]=true; var j=o.createElement('script');j.type='text/javascript',j.async=true,j.src=i,o.head.appendChild(j); var css=o.createElement("link");css.type="text/css",css.rel="stylesheet",css.href=x,o.head.appendChild(css) })(window,document, "__sonix","//sonix.ai/widget.js","//sonix.ai/widget.css");

The post The LawBytes Podcast, Episode 38: Debating the Broadcast Panel Report – A Conversation with BTLR Panel Chair Janet Yale appeared first on Michael Geist.

from RSSMix.com Mix ID 8247009 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2020/02/lawbytes-podcast-episode-38/ via http://www.rssmix.com/

0 notes

thedoctoraway1 · 6 years

Text

Natural Weight Loss and Appetite Control | beSlim by beMore | 6-in-1 Weight Loss Formula to Help Detox, Burn Fat, Boost Metabolism and Increase Energy

Sonix Labs-60% HCA, Pure Garcinia Cambogia Extract – Extra Strength – Natural Weight Loss Supplemen

ure Garcinia Cambogia Extract with 95% HCA -Weight Loss Pills for Women that Work Fast Belly Fat B

Garcinia Cambogia 2014 Review – Burn Fat Quicker With Garcinia Cambogia

Dr Oz Diet Pills Review. Know Everything about the Dr Oz Diet Pill!

Xyngular Products

Dr. Bernd Friedlander – Using collagen to promote optimal health – Podcast #126

Herman and Sharron – Dr. Bruce and Leslie Fife "The Coconut Ketogenic Diet"

Dr. David Jockers – Ketosis and Cancer Prevention – Podcast #139

Arbonne Essentials Product Training with Dr. Peter Matravers

Obesity in America – Should it be a Diagnosis? | Well.Org

View on Amazon Add to cart

Amazon Price: $18.00 $18.00 (as of May 1, 2018 1:20 pm – Details). Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on the Amazon site at the time of purchase will apply to the purchase of this product.

Are you struggling to stay your active, normal self while managing weight gain that seems to just appear out of nowhere?

Fatigued after a long day of work? Finding it harder and harder to lose unwanted body or stomach fat? Getting rid of stubborn belly fat, losing weight and staying fit and active is NOT easy.

That's why we took a different approach and targeted 6 biological pathways that impact weight loss and fitness… even while you sleep.

6 Ways to Lose Weight Safely & Naturally with beSlim and Become a Trimmer, Slimmer, and Happier You

1. Metabolism – Raspberry Ketones are a natural extract from the pigment of raspberries shown to boost metabolism levels.

2. Thermogenesis – Clinical research also shows Raspberry Keytone supplements act like a thermogenic metabolism booster that help breakdown and burn fat cells.

3. Curb Hunger Cravings – Our organic African Mango is a natural appetite suppressant to help control those cravings

4. Cleansing Detox – Green Tea is a powerful antioxidant super-food to cleanse those nasty toxins

5. Energizer – Theobromine is a naturally occurring energy source to help you stay active

6. Calorie Furnace – L-Carnitine is an amino acid that nourishes toned lean muscle mass which is your natural fat burning engine

We are committed to quality, purity, and safety

Unlike other weight loss pills like Lipo-6, Hydroxy-Cut or Phentramine beSlim was designed by a woman for women with natural GMO Free ingredients that won't leave you feeling nauseous or jittery like those other diet pills and weight loss supplements

If you aren't 100% satisfied with beSlim we'll refund your entire order. No questions asked!

So what are you waiting for? Order today and don't be less, beMore. And of course… beSlim!

Extreme Weight Loss Pills for Men and Women :: Supports Appetite Suppression :: Boosts Metabolism & Energy Levels :: Contains Acai Berry, Green Tea Leaf, and more :: 60 Tablets :: Prime Labs

ULTRA-BURN Powerful Weight Loss Pills and Appetite Suppressant PLUS Carb Blocker with Garcinia Cambogia, Green Coffee Bean, Raspberry Keones, Acia Berry – 60 caplets

Natural Factors – WellBetX PGX Plus Mulberry, Helps Promote a Normalized Appetite, 180 Vegetarian Capsules

Pure Garcinia Cambogia Extract With 95% HCA For Fast Fat Burn. Best Appetite Suppressant & Carb Blocker. Natural, Clinically Proven Weight Loss Supplement. Best Garcinia Cambogia Raw Diet Pills.

Weight Loss Tea Detox Tea Lipo Express Body Cleanse, Reduce Bloating, & Appetite Suppressant, 30 Day Tea-tox, with Potent Traditional 100% Naturals Herbs, Ultimate Way to Calm and Cleanse Your Body

RSP QuadraLean Stimulant Free Fat Burner Pills, Weight Loss Supplement, Appetite Suppressant & Metabolism Booster, Diet Pill for Men & Women, 50 Servings

from TheDoctorAway http://www.thedoctoraway.com/shop/natural-weight-loss-and-appetite-control-beslim-by-bemore-6-in-1-weight-loss-formula-to-help-detox-burn-fat-boost-metabolism-and-increase-energy/

0 notes

transzsonix · 10 months

Text

a bit of an older doodle but i’ll throw it on here!! happy prime everyone!!!

#sonic #sonic the hedgehog #sth #sonic fanart #shadow the hedgehog #sonic prime #sonic prime spoilers #tw eyestrain #sonix art

929 notes · View notes

ramialkarmi · 6 years

Text

Here are the 8 best cases for your new iPhone X

The iPhone X is finally here, which means it's time to start worrying about breaking it.

With an all-glass back and huge bezel-less screen, the iPhone X is practically begging to be dropped and shattered. Plus, iPhone X screen repairs are expensive ($280 if you don't have AppleCare+) and the fixing the back could be even pricier.

So, you have two choices: Forgo a case to show off your beautiful new phone, or choose from any number of stylish, durable, and useful cases to protect your investment.

Business Insider compiled some of its top picks for iPhone X cases. Here are our favorites so far:

SEE ALSO: Scalpers are already reselling the iPhone X outside of Apple Stores

For the Apple-obsessed: Apple iPhone X leather case

Apple's leather cases have long been a great option for any new iPhone. With the X, Apple is rolling out new colors for both its silicone and leather cases, including the dark aubergine case pictured above, fuchsia, and bright blue.

And if you're a fan of folio cases, Apple also introduced a brand-new premium leather folio case that costs $99.

Apple's standard leather case costs $49 and is available in stores or on Apple's website.

For those who want to show off: Spigen ultra hybrid iPhone X case

There's a line of thinking that says if you're going to spend more than $1,000 on a phone, you shouldn't hide it underneath a case. That's where clear cases come in.

A crystal clear case like this one from Spigen will offer a bit of protection for your phone without hiding the design. Spigen's is slim, simple, and works with wireless chargers.

The case costs $12.99 on Amazon (it's available for Prime, too).

For the stylish yet understated: Sonix brown tortoise iPhone X case

I've been a fan of Sonix cases for over a year for two reasons: they're stylish and they have small bumpers to help prevent screen breakage.

While most of Sonix's cases are clear with overlaid prints, the company recently launched a new line of leather and tortoise cases. The tortoise finish is subtle, fashionable, and matches the high-end vibe of the iPhone X.

The Sonix brown tortoise case costs $45 and is available through the Sonix website, as well as several third-party retailers.

See the rest of the story at Business Insider

#Tech Insider #Arab #Entrepreneurship #sillicon alley insider

0 notes

tortuga-aak · 6 years

Text

Here are the 8 best cases for your new iPhone X

Hollis Johnson

The iPhone X is finally here, which means it's time to start worrying about breaking it.

So, you have two choices: Forgo a case to show off your beautiful new phone, or choose from any number of stylish, durable, and useful cases to protect your investment.

Business Insider compiled some of its top picks for iPhone X cases. Here are our favorites so far:

For the Apple-obsessed: Apple iPhone X leather case

Apple

And if you're a fan of folio cases, Apple also introduced a brand-new premium leather folio case that costs $99.

Apple's standard leather case costs $49 and is available in stores or on Apple's website.

For those who want to show off: Spigen ultra hybrid iPhone X case

Spigen

There's a line of thinking that says if you're going to spend more than $1,000 on a phone, you shouldn't hide it underneath a case. That's where clear cases come in.

A crystal clear case like this one from Spigen will offer a bit of protection for your phone without hiding the design. Spigen's is slim, simple, and works with wireless chargers.

The case costs $12.99 on Amazon (it's available for Prime, too).

For the stylish yet understated: Sonix brown tortoise iPhone X case

Sonix

I've been a fan of Sonix cases for over a year for two reasons: they're stylish and they have small bumpers to help prevent screen breakage.

The Sonix brown tortoise case costs $45 and is available through the Sonix website, as well as several third-party retailers.

See the rest of the story at Business Insider from Feedburner http://ift.tt/2lQAvp7

#Feedburner

0 notes

debrahnesbit · 5 years

Text

The LawBytes Podcast, Episode 22: Navigating Intermediary Liability for the Internet – A Conversation with Daphne Keller

The question of what responsibility should lie with Internet platforms for the content they host that is posted by their users has been the subject of debate around in the world as politicians, regulators, and the broader public seek to navigate policy choices to combat harmful speech that have implications for freedom of expression, online harms, competition, and innovation. To help sort through the policy options, Daphne Keller, the Director of Intermediary Liability at Stanford’s Center for Internet and Society, joins the podcast this week. She recently posted an excellent article on the Balkinization blog that provided a helpful guide to intermediary liability law making and agreed to chat about how policy makers can adjust the dials on new rules to best reflect national goals.

Episode Notes:

Keller, Build Your Own Intermediary Liability Law: A Kit for Policy Wonks of All Ages

Credits: Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, May 28, 2019

Transcript:

LawBytes Podcast – Episode 22 transcript powered by Sonix—the best audio to text transcription service

LawBytes Podcast – Episode 22 was automatically transcribed by Sonix with the latest audio-to-text algorithms. This transcript may contain errors. Sonix is the best way to convert your audio to text in 2019.

Michael Geist: This is Law Bytes, a podcast with Michael Geist.

Dan Albas: Minister, number nine of your guidelines: free from hate and vile extremism. One, the prime minister has been obviously talking a lot, refers to protecting Canadians from hate, violent extremism as well as disinformation. Now, I believe no one here defends hate speech and all Canadians deserve to feel safe in their communities and online. My question is, how will you enforce this measure? How will you monitor these platforms while also protecting free speech?

Navdeep Bains: So free speech is absolutely essential. It’s part of our charter rights and freedom. This is why I became a liberal. And this is really core to our democracy and what it means to be Canadian. But at the same time, there’s clear limitations to that when it comes to hate, for example. And we see newspapers and broadcasters that hold themselves to account when it comes to not spewing that kind of hate on their platforms. So clearly, these digital platforms that have emerged also have a responsibility. We all are very aware of the 51 individuals that were killed in New Zealand, in Christchurch. And that really prompted this call to action where the prime minister was at Paris to say platforms need to step up. If they had the technology, if they had the ability to bring people together, to connect people and then investing in A.I. and all these different technologies, they need to deploy those technologies to prevent those platforms from being used as means to disseminate extremism, terrorism or hate. And so that’s what we’re trying to do with the government as a government is really apply pressure to these platforms to hold them to account. And those platforms recognize they need to step up as well. And that’s one key mechanism of how we want to deal with this.

Michael Geist: The debates over intermediary liability, which focus on what responsibility should lie with Internet platforms and service providers for the content they host that’s posted by their users has been taking place around the world in Parliament’s op ed pages and the broader public debate. Much like the exchange you just heard between Canadian Conservative MP Dan Albas and Innovation, Science and Economic Development Minister Navdeep Bains from earlier this spring, there are no easy answers with policy choices that have implications for freedom of expression, online harms, competition and innovation. To help sort through the policy options and their implications, I’m joined on the podcast this week by Daphne Keller, the director of Intermediary Liability at Stanford Center for Internet and Society. Daphne, who served as associate general counsel for Google until 2015, worked on groundbreaking intermediary liability litigation and legislation around the world while at the company, and her work at Stanford focuses on platform regulation and Internet users rights. She recently posted an excellent article on the Balkanization blog that provided a helpful guide to intermediary liability lawmaking and agreed to chat about how policymakers can adjust the dials on new rules to best reflect national goals.

Michael Geist: Daphne, thanks so much for joining me on the podcast.

Daphne Keller: Thank you. It’s good to be here.

Michael Geist: Great. So as you know, there’s been a lot of momentum lately towards regulating online speech and establishing more liability for the large Internet platforms. That’s an issue that we’ve been grappling with, really, I think, since the popularization of the Internet. Back in the 1990s. But today there seems to be more and more countries expressing concern about online harms and looking especially to the large platforms the Google and Facebook and others to do more with real legal and regulatory threats if they don’t. So before we get into some of the challenges inherent with this kind of do something demands. I thought we could set the groundwork a little bit from a couple of perspectives, both with the law says now and with the platforms have been doing. Why don’t we start with the laws and recognizing their differences, of course, between lots of different countries. Where have we been for the last number of years anyway, even going back a couple of decades with respect to some of these liability questions?

Daphne Keller: Well, a lot of countries never enacted Internet specific content liability laws. So depending where you are in the world, it might be that these things get resolved just based on existing defamation laws or existing copyright law. But in the U.S. and the European Union, the law has been relatively stable going back two decades-ish. In the US, we’ve had two very major statutes that occupy almost the whole field. We have the DMCA Digital Millennium Copyright Act for copyright, and that sets out a sort of detailed takedown process with a lot of prescriptive steps. And then the other major U.S. law is Communications Decency Act 230, generally known as CDA 230, which is a very broad immunity for most other kinds of claims for anything that’s not intellectual property or a federal crime. So things like defamation or invasion of privacy claims, the platforms are just immunized. In Europe – is it useful if I go into some detail about Europe or is that wandering off topic for you?

Michael Geist: I think it’s really useful because from a Canadian perspective in particular, we’ve on the one hand got now the USMCA, That seems to put some of the U.S. rules in place in Canada, at least at a high level, via trade. But at the same time, I don’t think there’s any question but that what’s been taking place in Europe is influencing a lot of the thinking amongst some Canadian politicians.

Daphne Keller: Yeah, okay. So the main law on platform liability at the EU level is the e-commerce directive, which was passed in 2000 and it’s implemented in different member state laws slightly differently. But the basic concept is you get limited immunity if you are a certain kind of intermediary. So you have to be hosting or caching or transit provider. So it’s a little bit of a funny immunity in that it’s not clear if it covers search engines or some other things you might expect to be covered by intermediary liability protections. But if you’re eligible for those safe harbors, the rule is basically you have to take down unlawful content if you know about it. However, the member states and the courts implement the law. They can’t compel you to go out and proactively monitor. It’s just a reactive, knowledge based obligation. And that I think has had some some real shortcomings just because it lacks a lot of the procedural protections that you see in something like the DMCA, where, for example, the person who’s being accused of copyright infringement is supposed to be able to get a notice that it’s happened and be able to challenge it and so forth. There isn’t that kind of detail in most European laws. And so platforms have an even greater incentive to just take an accuser’s word for it and go ahead and take content down, even if it’s not at all clear that it’s illegal because it’s much safer to take things down and avoid risk for yourself. And you know what empirical data we have shows this happening shows lots and lots of unfounded allegations and lots and lots of erroneous takedowns.

Michael Geist: Right. I mean, I think the situation sometimes can be somewhat similar in Canada, where without some of the clear cut procedural safeguards faced with the question of what might be unlawful content or might not be, sometimes large platforms may err on the side of taking down just because it’s simpler to do that. So we’ve got large platforms having some amount of protections, safe harbors in both the major jurisdictions, stronger procedural protections such that perhaps, I suppose the bias is more to leave up in the United States unless the process is met, whereas in Europe that may reverse. How how do the companies handle some of those kinds of differences? Is it as simple as in the US they’re more likely to err to leave content online and in Europe and perhaps similar countries without those procedural protections they’re more likely to take things down.

Daphne Keller: Certainly, I mean that if if we’re talking about the big platforms like the Facebook and Googles and Twitters of the world, they all have nationally specific versions that are targeted to users in a particular jurisdiction and often are optimized for them in ways that are about commercial success. There will be a Google Doodle that’s relevant for a local holiday that’s shown just in that country, for example, but also by having different versions of the service for different countries, you can sort of sandbox legal compliance and say, OK, we’ve established that this content is illegal in France, so we’re going to take it down from the French version of the service, but we’re not going to apply French law globally.

Michael Geist: Right. So that, of course, gets us into the question of things like the Equustek case that we had in Canada, where you get a single country like Canada trying to make those decisions not just for its own citizens, but effectively for others by a court order. But we’ll park that for the moment and stick to it, because if this stuff gets so complicated so quickly and I guess stick, stick primarily to the the pressure for more regulation, the sense that somehow the rules, as you’ve just articulated, are at least in the minds of certainly some politicians, and we certainly see it as part of the discourse not good enough. That erring even on one side or the other still has left us, in a sense with a certain amount of harm online. And I think there’s a greater concern and appreciation for that. So there is unquestionably mounting pressure to do more from a regulatory perspective as a way of requiring, in effect, these large platforms to do more. Now, you’ve been really prolific on the issue and written all different kinds of things on it, but it was a piece on the blog Balkanization that really crystallized it for me because it highlights the challenges of intermediary liability laws. I guess as a starting point, what are we often trying to balance when it comes to these laws?

Daphne Keller: So there are generally three goals that legislatures are trying to balance. One is to prevent harm. So to take down content if it’s defaming someone or if it’s a movie piracy or, you know, causing harm. Another is to protect free expression. And obviously, there’s this tradeoff where the platforms are very afraid of liability. They’re likely to err on the side of taking things down and so controversial speech gets suppressed and so forth. And then the third goal is protecting technical innovation and economic growth that can come with it. So, you know, if you are a small startup, it’s really important to have immunities and, you know, know that you’re not going to be required, for example, to build a 100 million dollar content filter, because right now, at least in the US and in Europe, if you start a new platform and you want to compete with Facebook or compete with Twitter, you can know with relative certainty what kind of legal exposure you’re setting yourself up for and what it is you’re going to have to take down and potentially pay lawyers for. But but if that becomes less certain, then it’s harder and harder for small companies to enter the market and for people to experiment with new technologies. So just to recap, the three goals being balanced are harm prevention, free expression protection, and innovation.

Michael Geist: Sure. And I guess before we get into sort of how how you move some of those dials with those three three goals, I’m going to assume that many countries will look at each of those three policy objectives somewhat differently. Some may have constitutional norms that provide very strong protections on the freedom of expression side and are more willing to give, let’s say, on the innovation side.

Daphne Keller: Yeah, absolutely. And that kind of manifests in two ways. One is that some countries prohibit more speech than others. So, you know, they strike a balance. For example, that protects privacy more and sacrifices free expression and exchange or vice versa. But also that manifests in how countries set up their platform liability rules, you know, whatever it is that you are prohibiting. Your platform liability rules are going to need platforms to err in one side or the other. And so if you are starting from less speech protective goals, then maybe you’re more tolerant of a rule that’s going to lead platforms to take down a little bit too much speech or a lot too much speech.

Michael Geist: Right. And certainly we’ve seen, at least in some places, perhaps with or without some of the constitutional norms around freedom of expression, there’s been certainly, at least lately, a great deal of emphasis on the harm side.

Daphne Keller: Absolutely.

Michael Geist: And if that’s the priority, then, you know, if if we’re if we’re kind of trying to deal with each of these three things, there may be real implications, I think is what you’re getting at. Ultimately, you either for fostering innovative competitors in this space or for the safeguards around freedom of expression.

Daphne Keller: Yeah. And I think right now we’re seeing a big tendency for policies from Europe to get exported to the rest of the world, either via other countries adopting similar laws or via platforms taking European law and just applying it globally. But that’s kind of problematic, not just because of the conflict with United States law, which is what you hear about the most, but because of the conflict with a lot of other countries’ laws. If you compare in human rights law, the European Convention or the EU charter, they prioritize some things like privacy and personality rights protection relatively high compared to the Inter-American convention, which explicitly is set up to prioritize free expression more highly.

Michael Geist: Right. And we we ran into some of those questions in Canada last year around Web site blocking related issues where again, it was free of expression versus copyright versus privacy versus even net neutrality type issues. And you’ve got to grapple with each of those kinds of competing objectives. Why don’t we stay for a moment with the implications for freedom of expression around this? Because they’re at least as part of the discourse lately, there’s been a tendency to amongst some certainly to sideline that, to sort of say, well, listen. Of course, it may have some implications, but we’re now focused more on the harm. As we start getting into intermediary liability type rules, what ultimately are some of the real implications for the negative of potential negative effects, I suppose, for freedom of expression?

Daphne Keller: Well, I mean, already we see things like governments abusing copyright takedown systems to suppress criticism. The Government of Ecuador got caught using DMCA requests to try to take down police brutality videos and critical journalism. So, you know, even with the systems that we have now, there’s a lot of opportunity for abuse. Sometimes it silences really important political speech. Other times, the abusive takedown requests are like one commercial competitor trying to silence another, which is also a problem. But then there’s just that there’s there’s a lot of room for important speech to disappear.

Daphne Keller: The maybe most politically consequential shift that I see right now is the tremendous emphasis in Europe and in some other regions on terrorist content, because I think as platforms err on the side of taking down too much to be safe, the thing that’s kind of adjacent to so-called terrorist content is likely to be political speech about tough issues, you know, about American military policy in the Middle East or about immigration policy in Europe. And so that sort of erring on the side of taking down too much when what you’re looking for is potentially violent extremist supporting speech, threatens some really important stuff.

Michael Geist: That’s interesting. I mean, in Canada, we’ve largely avoided the takedown rules and copyright that you referenced. Successive governments have in a sense, I think looked at the experience elsewhere and seen some of these kinds of implications, such as the Ecuadorian example that you just provided and largely avoided adopting that, though many of those platforms that, of course, were very popular in Canada still use effectively take down systems. So Canadians find themselves subject to it at a certain level, even if it isn’t found within our laws. It’s striking to talk about sort of some of these decisions and the removal of content. What role, if any, do the courts play in all of this or is this just it falls to the platforms and they are the ones making these calls?

Daphne Keller: Well, it depends where you are. There are some very interesting rulings internationally saying the courts have to be involved in in some countries. So in Argentina, the Supreme Court ruled that for for most kinds of content, a platform doesn’t have any legal obligation to take it down until a court has looked at it and given it a full and fair due process and adjudicated that it’s illegal because they didn’t want to put platforms in the decisions of being the arbiters of speech rules. There is a similar ruling from the Supreme Court of India saying you need an adequate government authority to decide what’s illegal and you shouldn’t put it in the hands of platforms. That, of course, isn’t how it has worked in the US with copyright or in Europe with that that knowledge base takedown systems that they have. And that created a sort of asymmetry in the access to remedies for the people who are affected by takedowns. If you’re somebody who is a victim of defamation or a rights holder whose copyright is being infringed and a platform doesn’t do what you want, you can sue them. And here you can take it to court and get your rights enforced. But if you’re someone who’s an online speaker and you have been wrongly silenced by a false accusation or an error, in most countries, you don’t have standing to go to court and challenge that. So there isn’t a way to correct the errors of over removal. There’s only a way using courts to correct the errors under removal.

Michael Geist: I mean, it’s it is for those that are accustomed to seeing your due process as a core part of protecting freedom of expression, the notion that we would ultimately leave to large platforms these decisions, can be pretty frightening. And it was again, the site blocking issue in Canada, the proposal that was put forward was one that did not involve direct court oversight, which was one, one or a part where the real concerns lay. When you start vesting so much responsibility in these platforms to make these kinds of decisions. There are those that say that’s that’s appropriate in part because they are increasingly likening the platforms to publishers and saying is this sure looks a lot like a conventional publisher, shouldn’t they have the same kind of responsibility? What are some of the implications as you see it, as of treating large Internet platforms as akin to a conventional publisher?

Daphne Keller: Well, I think it would be impossible for them to function if they were treated like publishers. Publishers do pre publication review of the editorials that they put up or the, you know, TV shows that they air. And if there is something controversial in there, they have a lawyer look at it and decide if it’s legal. You can’t layer a process like that on top of Twitter or Facebook. You know, what are they supposed to do? Hold all of our tweets while they have their legal team, evaluate them. Just. There isn’t a model where truly publisher-like legal responsibility can be put on platforms, but we still get to post things instantaneously and communicate and have a soapbox or talk to our friends, you know, all of the uses that we value that comes from having an instantaneous communication platform on the Internet, depend on those intermediaries is not having to carry with you everything we say.

Michael Geist: I mean, that does highlight the particular challenge that I know you that you’ve seen. I see it at least one of the Internet content moderation at scale conferences. When you start getting into just the sheer amount of content that exists and what it ultimately means to put responsibility on a platform potentially to vet all of that, even to not vet it, even to try to deal with all of it is something that we haven’t really seen. I think really before in publishing or content history. It’s everybody having the opportunity in a sense to speak and using these platforms to do it. What are some of the implications if you if you move towards almost a one size fits all type approach saying that we are going to have this requirement, whether it’s vetting beforehand or even take action after given the scope and size of what’s taking place. If we treat the Facebook as akin to know other other platforms or large sites that have a lot of user generated content out there, the Wikipedia’s or Reddit’s of the world.

Daphne Keller: Yeah. Well, I mean I do want to be clear that I’m not saying our only choices are give them complete immunity or, you know, lose the Internet. That is the point of the Balkanization piece is there are a lot of knobs and dials you can turn in the laws. You could have an accelerated TRO process to get something taken down or you could have some kinds of content where we do expect platforms to know it when they see it and take it down and others where you wait for a court, which is what the law de facto does anyway right now. You know, platforms even in the US have to take down child sex abuse material immediately if they see it. They’re not supposed to wait for a court to assess it. But the rule is very different for defamation, you know, where it’s often very difficult to know the correct legal assessment. So, you know, just with that background that I don’t think we we need an all or nothing system and I’m not saying lawmakers in the 90s got things perfect and we should never re-ask any questions. But whatever the obligations are that we put on platforms, the kinds of things we might reasonably ask Facebook or YouTube to do are very different from the kinds of things we might reasonably ask a small local blog or a two person company developing a chat app or, you know, smaller competitors to do.

Daphne Keller: And I think lawmakers are often falling into a trap where they say we need to regulate platforms. And what they have in mind is Facebook and YouTube and they know that YouTube can do things like spend one hundred million dollars developing a copyright filter and they know that Facebook can do things like hire is at 20 or 30 thousand people at this point to do content, moderation. You know, they just sort of really move mountains and put tremendous resources into this. And so they craft laws accordingly. They say, well, platforms should have to filter, platforms should have to have very rapid human review when they’re notified that something is unlawful. And that’s tolerable for Google and Facebook. I think those laws could you are very likely to change the major platforms so that they take down a lot more lawful speech, but they’re not going to go out of business. But if you are Medium or Automatic or even Pinterest or Reddit. Reddit has 500 employees. They don’t have a multi-tens of thousands of people moderation team. And so the kinds of rules that might plausibly be imposed on very large platforms just won’t work for small platforms.

Michael Geist: No, I think that’s a good point. And I think we’re certainly we’re law we’re sort of past the prospect of saying it’s there are no rules out there. I think you’ve highlighted it. There’s there always have been some and in some places there’s been an expectation of even more aggressive take down and moderation. But it’s clear we’re moving more and more. The question is, I think, as you’ve put it, how you adjust the dial at a certain level. One of the things that is was striking to me is how much emphasis there has been on the platform responsibility for harmful speech, let’s say, as opposed to the focus on individuals themselves. So, you know, in the aftermath of Christchurch, for example, terrible event where almost all the focus seemed to be on what Facebook did or didn’t do or YouTube did or didn’t do, as opposed to the individual who did this and other people around that that might have been doing this. Do you have thoughts on what we might do to not just focus on platform responsibility here, but individual responsibility as well for where there are people purveying hate or engaging in things that are illegal under various laws.

Daphne Keller: Yeah, I think the focus on platforms is on the one hand understandable because they represent a choke point. You know, like they can shut down a lot of individuals in situations where it’s hard for plaintiffs and law enforcement to go find those individuals. But they’re a pretty bad choke point because they won’t stand up for the individual speakers interests outside of, you know, relatively special circumstances. But on the other hand, focusing on the platforms really risks failing to address the underlying issues. And this we’ve seen this in the EU terrorism context. There’s been tremendous energy put into making platforms take down videos that are recruitment videos or terrorist violence videos. And then when civil society organizations in Europe have asked the police, well, how many of those uploader is did you go try to find or how many of the video creators did you prosecute? How many actual investigations came out of this? There don’t seem to be a lot of a lot of efforts being put in that direction. And so, you know, it’s not that all but all enforcement should move off of platforms and onto individuals. But it certainly is the case that focusing so excessively on platforms is missing out on really important pieces of solving the problem.

Daphne Keller: The other I mean, for many cases, there is another complication here, as you know well from from the copyright context and from other contexts where you work, which is online, speakers who are sharing illegal content are often anonymous. And so if we say the law should go after the speakers more, you know, that starts inviting lawmakers to strip away at anonymity rights or propose that platform should have to retain the real I.D. of people who post content. So, you know, there are huge policy tradeoffs in any direction there.

Michael Geist: Yeah. It’s I think it’s really striking just how each time you peel back just a little bit on some of these policy choices, it’s not the slam dunk that you sometimes hear about as part of discussion. Just you just regulate that. You know, they broke it. They’ve got to fix it sort of thing, because there are there are those kinds of choices. I assume you don’t have much of a crystal ball and it’s tough to know where we’re necessarily going. So rather than us closing by asking what is this landscape going to look like in 12, 12 months or 24 months, I guess I’m curious, are you optimistic that as there is action, because I think it certainly feels like there’s a lot of momentum there, that that countries and politicians are going to get the complexity that that you’re highlighting here? Or are we at a point at a moment in time where there is just there’s the so-called tech-lash and strong momentum towards you got to do something that some of those implications will simply get lost in the rush to do something?

Daphne Keller: I’m not optimistic in the US, and this is part of why I put up that Balkanization piece, because I see people proposing laws that are just ignorant of sort of the known doctrines that can be deployed in intermediary liability. You know, they say, oh, well, let’s just tell platforms to be reasonable without looking at what are platform is likely to do. If they have a vague standard, well, they’re likely to just take everything down to avoid risk. So I think we are at risk in the US of getting laws that are so badly drafted that they might just be unconstitutional. But going through the process of passing a law and then litigating to figure out if it’s unconstitutional is not a really good way to arrive at standards. In Europe, I’m in a way more optimistic. It’s it’s not that I like most of the legal proposals that have been coming out of Europe now, but that’s mostly because they represent a sort of policy tradeoff that I wouldn’t make between free expression protection and harm prevention, for example. But European civil society has been very active on intermediary liability issues for quite a while. And so you tended to see in the legal proposals coming out of the EU at least process protections, you know, at least ideas like if you’re going to use a technical filter to identify supposedly unlawful content, you should have some humans double check to make sure that filter didn’t make a mistake. Or you see legal proposals saying things like you, you should notify big users and give them an opportunity to challenge or that the latest draft of the terrorist content regulation, which is very close to becoming a law there, has some really impressive transparency provisions for government. So saying not just that platforms have to be transparent about what they’re taking down and why, but also that if governments are requesting that content be taken down, they need to tell the public what it is that they’re doing. So we are slowly moving toward kind of knowing what the what the dials and knobs are and what are the things that we can do to help create more protections. And in a way, slowing things down seems like our best chance of building up a more educated set of policy making, more education in the policymaking community so that we get better laws.

Michael Geist: Well, I think you’ve done it. You’ve done a lot to try to help educate because they say the stuff that you’ve been working on, the large databases that highlight the kinds of cases that are out there that allow for a more comparative look as well as some of the analysis is in many ways where people need to start once they’ve once they’ve concluded that there needs to be some kind of policy measures taken or regulatory measures taken. There has to be recognition that’s step one. that’s not the end of the story. That’s really in many ways just the beginning of trying to craft things that are both effective, but also reflect the sort of values that domestically exist as well as constitutional norms and all the other policy priorities that you say can be fiddled with, I suppose, with those knobs and dials.

Daphne Keller: Yeah, well, hopefully we’ll do a good job.

Daphne Keller: Daphne, thanks so much for joining me on the podcast.

Daphne Keller: Thank you, Michael.

Quickly and accurately convert audio to text with Sonix.

Sonix uses cutting-edge artificial intelligence to convert your mp3 files to text.

Sonix is the best online audio transcription software in 2019—it’s fast, easy, and affordable.

If you are looking for a great way to convert your mp3 to text, try Sonix today.

The post The LawBytes Podcast, Episode 22: Navigating Intermediary Liability for the Internet – A Conversation with Daphne Keller appeared first on Michael Geist.

from RSSMix.com Mix ID 8247009 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2019/07/lawbytes-podcast-episode-22/ via http://www.rssmix.com/

0 notes