Pablo Rodriguez, Minister of Canadian Heritage, on April 5, 2022. Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press There was a glimmer of hope following that conversation, but when Rodriguez wrote his comments down, Google quickly stated that Canadian news would be removed from its search results.Then it and Meta began canceling existing relationships with large and small publications. The quantities are unclear because they are confidential commercial contracts, but it is reasonable to believe they total at least tens of millions of dollars.Jeff Elgie, CEO of Village Media, a company that specializes in digital local news startups where print has failed, has warned in Senate hearings that Facebook and Google's exit from the news ecosystem would damage his business. In a blog post to staff that was uploaded online, he calculated that "the potential impact on our traffic would be in the range of 50 percent: roughly 17-18 percent from Facebook (some sites more, some less) and 30-35 percent from Google search, Google News, and Google ads.""From a news publisher's perspective, it's a perfect storm," Elgie stated. "…Village Media believes that this has been a poor bill from the start. It was based on misinformation spread by others in the sector. The bill's premise was that Google and Facebook'steal' our content, which could not be further from the truth."
The fact Rodriguez now needs to face is that his department
does not understand digital economics and was duped into crafting legislation based on a dream.As a result, the current situation for the nation's news producers is significantly worse than it was before he decided to "help."Rodriguez has a few more weeks, if not months, to avoid being remembered as the man who destroyed the Canadian journalistic sector via hubris. After all, the blockage will not commence until C-18 enters into force.However, resolving this will necessitate humility, which has been lacking in this administration thus far.A new wave of young British and American women is questioning liberal feminist orthodoxy, exposing its flaws, contradictions, and outright evils. Two notable members of the movement, Mary Harrington and Louise Perry, have written books in the last year and a half, each with a different focus but similar ideas. In Harrington's Feminism Against Progress and Perry's The Case Against the Sexual Revolution, both authors—one a Gen Xer, one a Millennial—discuss the difficulties of being a woman in the early twenty-first century, from the failures of consent-based sexual ethics to the commodification of female bodies They both agree that the freedom gained for women by first-wave feminism, to be treated equally with men, must be safeguarded and is critical to female flourishing. They also agree that any feminism that seeks to dismiss gender differences, whether in dating, the workplace, or family, inherently fails women.
Harrington and Perry do not identify as conservatives
and while both are fervent anti-liberals who believe in common sense, history, and the unchanging nature of certain aspects of the human experience, neither seeks to turn back the clock. They are not modern-day Phyllis Schlaflys. Harrington remembers having a postmodern education and seriously challenging traditional gender roles and relationships in her 20s, only to learn after giving birth to her child that her biology was inextricably linked to her motherhood and sex. Perry, like me, grew up in a liberal household, learning from Carrie Bradshaw and Sex and the City that female empowerment entails behaving similarly to men in sex and relationships. She subsequently worked in a rape crisis center, where she quickly realized that biological sex differences and centuries of evolution imply that women, in general, do not want or profit from having intercourse with males.Perry's emphasis on hook-up culture, the negative impact of pornography, and the insufficiency of consent for determining the appropriateness and potential harm of a sexual encounter are difficult to confront. For women raised to be good liberal feminists, freedom is everything. We're meant to view women engaging in prostitution and pornography as empowered. To dispute their choices (or compelled "choices") is to challenge their personal autonomy.
However, Perry expertly challenges the reader's unease
bringing on compelling evidence to demonstrate that genuine, substantive disparities between most men and women—their choices, physical characteristics, and the power dynamic that results—make the harms produced by a libertarian approach extremely unethical. Perry's reaction is not a call to mass chastity, but rather a practical (if rarely heard) invitation for women to get to know men before having sex with them and to seek happy relationships. As if to demonstrate how serious she is about the suggestion, Perry hosted an actual in-person event last week to try to bring together like-minded men and women looking for a romantic partner who are uninterested in the potentially harmful hookup culture that pervades the widely used dating apps that many people believe are their only option.
Comments
Post a Comment