Fox News could soon be banned from Canadian cable

[Dimetrodon Empire]

You're engaging in Reductio ad absurdum. A logical fallacy.

Not every book that challenges society or everything contrarian causes problems on par with Fox News. In fact, the vast majority does not, and you know that.

As for social media, I believe in breaking them up. They have too much power.

No, I’m actually not. If the cumulative effect of inundation by certain forms of media and messaging is an atomized society where fewer people are having children and rates of depression, loneliness, anxiety, and body image issues have grown far more pronounced in the span of a couple decades, there’s a compelling argument to be made that serious harm has been done and that the media outlets responsible have been both irresponsible and either disingenuous or actively antisocial. I see no reason why we should stop a ban at FOX unless we’re employing more narrow criteria. Especially if we’re not taking free speech for granted.

Well, I don't stop at a ban at Fox News. Giant media conglomerates need more regulation and need to be broken up.

But don't tell me that you weren't trying to be outrageous by "asking" if I wanted to ban any book or anything that was critical of our society.

[Fahran]

No, I’m actually not. If the cumulative effect of inundation by certain forms of media and messaging is an atomized society where fewer people are having children and rates of depression, loneliness, anxiety, and body image issues have grown far more pronounced in the span of a couple decades, there’s a compelling argument to be made that serious harm has been done and that the media outlets responsible have been both irresponsible and either disingenuous or actively antisocial. I see no reason why we should stop a ban at FOX unless we’re employing more narrow criteria. Especially if we’re not taking free speech for granted.

Well, I don't stop at a ban at Fox News. Giant media conglomerates need more regulation and need to be broken up.

But don't tell me that you weren't trying to be outrageous by "asking" if I wanted to ban any book or anything that was critical of our society.

I wasn’t. I actually think there’s a strong argument for banning quite a few books and almost all social media, not to mention multiple media outlets, if we don’t take free speech for granted and set the standard at “this causes social harm or has a negative social value.”

[Dimetrodon Empire]

Well, I don't stop at a ban at Fox News. Giant media conglomerates need more regulation and need to be broken up.

But don't tell me that you weren't trying to be outrageous by "asking" if I wanted to ban any book or anything that was critical of our society.

I wasn’t. I actually think there’s a strong argument for banning quite a few books and almost all social media, not to mention multiple media outlets, if we don’t take free speech for granted and set the standard at “this causes social harm or has a negative social value.”

Merely causing harm is not the standard I am using. That being said, I am in favor of social media bans. Facebook being the main one.

But I am not going to entertain you further.

[Fahran]

I wasn’t. I actually think there’s a strong argument for banning quite a few books and almost all social media, not to mention multiple media outlets, if we don’t take free speech for granted and set the standard at “this causes social harm or has a negative social value.”

Merely causing harm is not the standard I am using. That being said, I am in favor of social media bans. Facebook being the main one.

But I am not going to entertain you further.

Your standard was promoting lies and causing harm to large groups. By that standard, as I’ve expressed, there’s a fairly extensive list of media outlets and content that should be banned, censored, and suppressed - even if that standard only applies to news media. I can probably rattle off multiple outlets that have knowingly lied and that have caused social harm. Really, the one thing stopping me from outright saying we should ban more things is our traditions surrounding free speech and free press, and the potential for such bans to be overly restrictive.

[Neutraligon]

I think if they wish to be seen as news they have an obligation to be truthful. If they wish to be talkshows then they need to follow canadas laws on hate speech. If they can do those things (I doubt it) then they should not be banned.

[Dimetrodon Empire]

Merely causing harm is not the standard I am using. That being said, I am in favor of social media bans. Facebook being the main one.

But I am not going to entertain you further.

Your standard was promoting lies and causing harm to large groups. By that standard, as I’ve expressed, there’s a fairly extensive list of media outlets and content that should be banned, censored, and suppressed - even if that standard only applies to news media. I can probably rattle off multiple outlets that have knowingly lied and that have caused social harm. Really, the one thing stopping me from outright saying we should ban more things is our traditions surrounding free speech and free press, and the potential for such bans to be overly restrictive.

Fox admitted they're not really news media.

And I just told you that I am not going to entertain reductions to the absurd and whataboutisms.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

-snip-

I will, of course, dispute that these things constitute 'harm'.

Does a doctor 'harm' their patients by helping them live longer and thus be more at risk of heart disease and cancer? Of course not.

[The Black Forrest]

-snip-

I will, of course, dispute that these things constitute 'harm'.

Does a doctor 'harm' their patients by helping them live longer and thus be more at risk of heart disease and cancer? Of course not.

Hmmm. I am not seeing how that disputes what she said.

You might address her comments directly.

[Royal Frankia]

Banning stuff usually backfires tremendously. Granted, Canada has the right to determine what might be or might not be broadcast in their own country.

[El Lazaro]

Banning stuff usually backfires tremendously. Granted, Canada has the right to determine what might be or might not be broadcast in their own country.

Ban tremendous backfiring then

[Royal Frankia]

Ban tremendous backfiring then

If that were the case then the War on Drugs would be successful. As I said, Canada has the right to determine what might be on its airways as Saudi Arabia or China.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

Hmmm. I am not seeing how that disputes what she said.

You might address her comments directly.

Fahran and I have argued this same point for a while now. She knows what I'm talking about.

I don't particularly care if anyone else does, seeing how they aren't the intended audience for that post.

[Fahran]

Ban tremendous backfiring then

If that were the case then the War on Drugs would be successful. As I said, Canada has the right to determine what might be on its airways as Saudi Arabia or China.

I’m not certain progressives want to emulate Saudi Arabia or China, but I do actually agree with the principle there and this is essentially the same thing.

[Fahran]

Hmmm. I am not seeing how that disputes what she said.

You might address her comments directly.

Fahran and I have argued this same point for a while now. She knows what I'm talking about.

I don't particularly care if anyone else does, seeing how they aren't the intended audience for that post.

I’m sorry, and please don’t take this as mockery, but this is low-key wholesome. We’re literally just continuing our long-running personal debate everywhere, refracted through different topics, without regard for the rest of the world. That said, let’s try not to drift off from the topic.

[Fahran]

-snip-

I will, of course, dispute that these things constitute 'harm'.

Does a doctor 'harm' their patients by helping them live longer and thus be more at risk of heart disease and cancer? Of course not.

I don’t think social media or books and other media promoting sexual violence have lengthened people’s lifespans. There are a decent handful of studies suggesting the former have created serious issues for how we socialize and how we view ourselves, and that these effects have been broadly negative. I should think the looming population collapse alone would indicate that we have a serious problem. As for the latter, there are absolutely books and novels that perpetuate lies and have a net negative impact on their readers and society.

I think the only real way around supporting a ban of FOX and not other media is to narrow the criteria on what warrants a ban. Which is actually what Canada has done, constructing the parameters in such a way that one sort of media will tend to be impacted while others won’t.

[James_xenoland]

lol Canada lol

Just about sums it up. Speed running to the worst of 1984, animal farm and fahrenheit 451 style dystopia even faster than the rest of the non-US english speaking world.

I take it you have the same opinion about the various GOP-held state legislatures that are bringing back book bans and rigid control over education?

Moderating content available to children in schools =/= "banning books" nor is it a violation of anyone's right to speech since teachers and staff are employees. This is fallacious line of argument.

[New Peo Billipyraneinond]

Way to silence opposition, Trudeau.

[Soviet Haaregrad]

Way to silence opposition, Trudeau.

Most of Trudeau's opposition will be unaffected by some foreign propaganda network no longer being carried in Canada. Ohnoes, where will I find my favourite lies!?!

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

It's not like Russia Today and its manyheaded subsidiaries aren't compelled by law to register as foreign agents and to disclose compromising information in the Land of the Free either. Why should then Fox News, the American-bred counterpart to RT be allowed to operate as freely as they want in Canada?

[Ifreann]

It's not like Russia Today and its manyheaded subsidiaries aren't compelled by law to register as foreign agents and to disclose compromising information in the Land of the Free either. Why should then Fox News, the American-bred counterpart to RT be allowed to operate as freely as they want in Canada?

Because Russia is Bad™ and America is Good™.

[Equai]

Way to silence opposition, Trudeau.

... FoxNews is literally foreign TV network, a very trash one at that focusing on spreading hate crime and violence against minorities. It is in Canada's right and juiristictions to not allow a foreign TV channel on their soil just how you all rallied against Russian FoxNews (Russia Today which is also a trash right wing TV network as well) to be banned in your precious west. Nothing to do with "silencing" or "censorship" Canada just wants their domestic trash right-wing channels to spread hate and not American.

[Equai]

It's not like Russia Today and its manyheaded subsidiaries aren't compelled by law to register as foreign agents and to disclose compromising information in the Land of the Free either. Why should then Fox News, the American-bred counterpart to RT be allowed to operate as freely as they want in Canada?

Because Russia is Bad™ and America is Good™.

One guy here unironically said that actually-

[Heavenly Assault]

Censorship is not progressive. Suppression of expression is not progressive. The "Liberalism" of today is now just a kind of alt-conservatism.

[Fahran]

... FoxNews is literally foreign TV network, a very trash one at that focusing on spreading hate crime and violence against minorities. It is in Canada's right and juiristictions to not allow a foreign TV channel on their soil just how you all rallied against Russian FoxNews (Russia Today which is also a trash right wing TV network as well) to be banned in your precious west. Nothing to do with "silencing" or "censorship" Canada just wants their domestic trash right-wing channels to spread hate and not American.

And Canada is basically doing what China or Iran do with regard to foreign media reporting on topics or in ways they find unacceptable. It's censorship motivated primarily by ideological considerations and likely intended to suppress political enemies. Iran makes similar claims about propaganda when they arrest reporters for promoting free speech, women's rights, or LGBT+ rights in Iran.

[Fahran]

One guy here unironically said that actually-

Funnily enough, that person is arguably more honest and self-aware than the Canadian government.