Freezenet’s Official Podcast: October 2022: The Bill C-11 Senate Hearing Special 2

In the 48th episode of the Freezenet official podcast, “The Bill C-11 Senate Hearing Special 2”, we take a look at the news and reviews we covered in October 2022.

Welcome to the public version of the Freezenet Official Podcast for October, 2022. This month’s episode is entitled “The Bill C-11 Senate Hearing Special 2” because of the ongoing crucial Bill C-11 senate hearings.

In this episode, we also cover the massive witness intimidation scandal that has rocked those same hearings as well as a number of updates regarding the Bill C-18 legislation (link tax).

This episode also covers all of the usual music and video game reviews. All this and more on this month’s episode!

You can check out our official podcast on Anchor. Alternatively, you can take a listen below:

What follows is a transcript to this month’s episode.


The Bill C-11 Senate Hearing Special 2

Hi, I’m your host, Drew Wilson.  Welcome to episode 48 of the Freezenet official podcast for October, 2022.  Here are your top 3 headlines:

The Top 3

Bill C-11 hearings continue at the Canadian Senate

Massive witness intimidation scandal clouds Bill C-11 hearing, and the mastermind behind this scheme to silence critics is non other than notorious Liberal MP, Chris Bittle.

… and the Canadian government shuts down Link Tax hearings as it tries to ram through Bill C-18 with minimal debate

Top Stories

Before I get into the top three stories, I wanted to point out that I’ve posted two vlog postings this month.  The first is on the massive witness intimidation scandal that has rocked the Bill C-11 hearings.  The second video, the normal entry of the month, offers some statistics on the hearings as well as some thoughts and reflections.  It even has a prediction on where things are going to head with Bill C-11.  You can check out those videos directly on the website.

Now, to the top three stories.

The Bill C-11 Senate hearings are continuing.  Last month, we left off half way through the 6th hearing.  In the second segment, we heard from even more lobbyists.  Yup, lobbyists have been a real theme throughout these hearings.  What has also been a theme throughout the hearings is how lobbyists also dodged the real questions of the debate.  That’s what happened when Senator Manning asked one of the lobbyists about the threat of other countries passing similar legislation.

[Cash clip]

Yeah, not answering the serious questions has really become a theme as of late for lobbyists.  An argument could be made here that maybe lobbyists do not have answers to these questions.

So, with Week two complete, we then started with week 3 of the hearings.

During the first segment of hearing 7, we heard from scholars and researchers.  There was a lot of very insightful stuff such as just how not transparent the CRTC is.  One of the witnesses, however, did something that I hadn’t seen up to this point: doing a complete 180 as other witnesses discusses, at length, the problems with Section 4.  Here’s Trudel towards the beginning of the question and answer segment:

[Trudel Clip 1]

Yeah, this whole thing about user generated content is totally fabricated.  There’s no way that such content would be touched by this legislation!  Well, after numerous exchanges about Section 4 with other witnesses, Trudel was seen looking down at something.  Presumably, he was looking at the legislation.  At the end of the question and answer segment, after answering a completely unrelated question, Trudel seemed to realize he screwed up.

[Trudel Clip 2]

Whoops!  Now, credit where credit is due: when Trudel was told about the sections seemingly during the hearing, he actually looked at the sections, assessed what they mean, acknowledged the problems with them, and offered an honest assessment, building on both his knowledge of the Broadcasting Act and the legislation.  An oversight on his part?  Perhapse, but he at least gave the time of day to understand what others were saying and honestly assess it.  For that, I have to give respect for that.

It just so happened that he acknowledged the big problem of the legislation in the process and wound up making a similar call to what critics have been saying all along.  Honestly, quite a moment during the hearing in and of itself.

In the next segment of hearing 7, we heard from three digital first creators.  For all the lobbyists we heard from, the number of creators they ended up hearing from up to this point has been quite low.  It was during those hearings that an interesting idea emerged given that it seems all but a sure thing that the platforms are going to be contributing to a creation fund.  Here’s Senator Karen Sorenson asking the question and answers by, in order, JJ McCullough, Justin Tomchuk (AKA Umami), and Wyatt Sharpe.

[Digital First Creator clip]

This is where the idea, at least on the hearing side of things, began to form about if large tech platforms have to pay into a fund, then why not allow those digital creators that helped to build those platforms actually have access to some of those funds.  After all, that money would otherwise only go to the large legacy players that had little to nothing to do with the growth of the platforms.  Why should they be the sole beneficiaries of those funds?

To expand on that point, smaller players tend to also have lower cost overhead because they generally aren’t paying for some of the things traditional broadcasters are paying for.  This might include licensing fees as well as equipment dedicated to the traditional spectrum that TV lives on and the cost to put those signals on, say, old transmitters for rabbit ear TVs, satellite connections, or even cable transmissions.

So, as Umami pointed out, it really doesn’t seem fair that a digital first creator goes through the effort of planning and creating content when the fruits of their labour goes only to the legacy players afterwards.

Moving on to the 8th hearing, we saw more digital creators as well as Scott Benzie of Digital First Canada.  During the hearing, one of the creators, Oorbee Roy, AKA AuntySkates, was asked what it would mean for her career if Bill C-11 is passed as-is.  Roy bluntly responded that she would have to start looking for a full time job.  That is as stark as you are going to get for an answer, but it is honest.  A lot of creators feel that their livelihoods are under threat and some have openly said that they might start looking at VPN’s or moving out of the country altogether to continue their careers.  That’s just a taste of what the mood is regarding creators and C-11.

Another aspect of this hearing is the witness intimidation scandal that cropped up.  As mentioned in the top three, notorious Liberal MP, Chris Bittle, was accused of leaking a request for an investigation into Digital First Canada to the Globe and Mail – an investigation that went nowhere because the Lobbying Commissioner found no evidence of wrongdoing.  The idea was seemingly to bully and silence critics of Bill C-11 – an effort that fortunately ended in failure.  Senators were shocked and disgusted that this even took place. Evidence was tabled, proving that the organization did nothing untoward and is in compliance with all applicable laws.

Now, one theme that had cropped up in these hearings surrounded Francophone content.  The hand-wringing by some Senators was that French voices were getting suppressed on social media and, without this legislation, will mean that Quebec culture would die out completely.  There was, of course, no evidence at all that this was happening, but it was being repeated on multiple occasions.  The question was then put forward to Benzie regarding this very topic.  Let’s just say the talking point got completely and utterly destroyed.  Here’s Senator Julie Miville-Dechene questioning Benzie on this:

[Benzie Clip]

Man, now that is what I call a beatdown to a talking point.  If that is not the top knock-out punch of the hearings, that has got to be at least in the top 10.  So much for the talking point that Quebec voices aren’t being heard.

While there was certainly numerous exciting elements in the first segment, the second segment with more lobbyists was quite sleepy to say the least. There was one moment where the topic of digital first creators came up.  They were asked about the risk they face with this legislation.  Here’s Senator Jim Quinn asking some questions and being responded to by David Errington:


For me, this clip showcases the changing of attitude towards the concept of digital first creators by Bill C-11 supporters.  As you heard last month, the attitude was basically that digital first creators basically do not exist and the debate surrounding digital content was, to quote one C-11 supporter, a “canard”.  Now that we’ve had a number of digital first creators be given permission to speak in their defence, you start to hear the charge that digital first creators don’t exist evaporate.  As many have already said, as a matter of fact, we do exist.

In its place is somewhat more diplomatic language – although I did note some comments that digital first content was still considered ‘not professional’ or not something a lot of people would want to watch.  Given that this hearing was right after the hearing involving Digital First Canada, you could really hear that this new response to the concerns was a little more, shall we say, wobbly as they try and get a better footing on how to respond.  Still, the attitude was actually notably changing at the very least.

That ultimately closed out week three of these hearings.  We then got to week four right after.

When we got to the 9th hearing, I couldn’t help but notice that the setup for these hearings begin to change.  Before, we had panels that were either all supportive of the legislation or asking for changes to Section 4.  These panels were largely isolated from each other with the only real connection being the Senators asking questions, bridging both panels together in that manner.  In the next hearing, you had a digital first creator and a legacy corporate representative in the same hearing.

It was during this hearing that I started to notice that Bill C-11 supporters started to formulate their responses to the criticisms of the bill in a little bit more of a coherent manner.  In this case, I noticed that the supporter began trying to turn the regulation of online content as something that separates user generated content from the premium platforms like Netflix and Disney+.  In fact, the supporter here seemed open to the idea of exempting what he referred to as the “t-shirt sellers”.  I figured at that point, hey, if that’s what you want to call it, by all means as long as it gets the point across of what the aims are for the smaller players.

Now, the rather interesting dynamic with this hearing is the fact that Frédéric Bastien Forrest is not only a digital content creator, but also one from Quebec – in fact, you just heard his name mentioned by Benzie earlier on.  It’s an interesting dynamic because he is one of many that are supposedly not having their voices heard and that the evil algorithms are silencing.  Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, these ideas were put towards him and, well, here’s Senator Miville-Dechene getting her answer:

[Forrest Clip]

I like how the Senators finally get a Quebec YouTuber, then one Senator finally gets to put her theory that Quebec voices are being squashed by the algorithm to the test, and Forrest ends up giving his honest answer that closely mirrors other digital first creators.  If the theory was down for the count before, any remnants of a comeback from that theory was completely flattened at that particular moment.  From my side of things, it felt like that was a clear moment of confirmation of what I had suspected. I went from “pretty sure someone like him would say the same thing as other creators” to “Yeah, people like him are pretty much on the same page here.”

The second segment of that hearing featured witnesses from Netflix, the Motion Picture Association, and the Canadian Association of Film Distributors and Exporters.  Again, this was a panel of both sides of the debate being brought together.  If you thought that Benzie was the only one delivering a heck of a knockout punch, you’d be wrong.  Another one was actually quite effectively delivered by Stéphane Cardin of Netflix at the considerable expense of Noah Segal.  Mixed in was questions from Senator Leo Housakos.  The moment was… well… OK, just listen to the clip.

[Cardin Clip]

Ouch.  Having seen the whole hearing, I know that Segal was kind of left alone for most of the rest of the hearing.  He was brought back in towards the end and you could tell he was still smarting from that one.  I may not exactly be one to be cheer-leading on premium services as I don’t really have any skin on that part of the debate, but I have to say that for how calm and collected he came off in tone, he really didn’t mess around there at all.  I don’t know how much Cardin was paid to be there, but it was clearly worth every penny for Netflix.  Remind me never to have a debate about Netflix against that guy.

We then moved on to the 10th hearing.  The first segment featured Nettwerk Music Group, a Canadian record label that, since at least the mid 2000’s, has a stellar track record when it comes to understanding technology.  This includes the Save the Music Fan campaign which was a pushback against the mass file-sharing lawsuits being carried out by the major record labels.

Things got rather interesting in an insightful manner when Patrick Aldous of Nettwerk spoke about the implications of the legislation from their perspective.  Here’s Senator Fabian Manning asking the question with Aldous responding:

[Aldous Clip]

I have to say, that is a really fascinating perspective.  Yes, I heavily covered the plight of digital first creators a lot, so I don’t get much opportunity to cover these more unique perspectives.  Getting that perspective from an independent record label like that really helped add that interesting dimension to the overall debate.  This in that it’s not just small digital first creators getting harmed by this, but also music artists that have found varying degrees of success already.  So, it was interesting to hear the similar fears that are being expressed as well.

I’ve always had a tonne of respect for Nettwerk Music Group and it seems that highly respectable track record is continuing to this day.

In the second segment of hearing 10, we heard from more researchers and scholars.  Emily Laidlaw was part of the hearing and she actually addressed an angle of this legislation that hasn’t gotten a whole lot of attention in the hearings up to that point.  It wasn’t really touched on in the question and answer portion, so here’s part of her opening statement:

[Laidlaw Clip]

Laidlaw really hits on a number of key points that goes through my mind when it comes to the question of if the legislation is constitutional or not.  There was the issue of whether the scope of the legislation creeps in to violating free speech thanks to compelling platforms to demote content in favour of other forms of content.

Another angle that seems to be lesser known in caselaw is whether the legislation is a violation of freedom of expression in the area of compelled speech.  If the law goes through as-is and the platform is basically ordered to promote certain kinds of content, does that constitute compelled speech?  If so, then is that a violation of freedom of expression?  Apparently, that isn’t necessarily clear – which would explain why I had such a hard time researching this area in the past.  In the US, compelled speech is, indeed, a violation of free speech.  In Canada, it’s not necessarily clear from a legal standpoint – at least, that was what I was able to get out of that part of the hearing.  It may be a bit of a more weird angle on free speech, but I find it to be a rather interesting one nevertheless.

Now, I’m not going to lie, I am rather new to following Senate proceedings to this level of detail.  So, I honestly didn’t know if that was the end of the hearings or if there was going to be more.  As it turns out, and as Senator Paula Simons directly pointed out to me over Twitter, the Senate was only on a one week break.  There were more hearings to come.  A week later, I saw more hearings on the schedule, so there was going to be a week 5 of hearings after all.

During the 11th hearing, we heard from someone with ties with the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic, or CIPPIC.  This along with two experts including Dwayne Winseck.

Winseck was very clear that the idea of sweeping in so many forms of human expression into the definition of broadcasting is an infuriating concept.  The definitions of this legislation needs to be fixed.  Otherwise, according to Winseck, it opens this legislation up to a court challenge.

Vivek Krishnamurthy, who happens to have a relationship with CIPPIC, was of particular interest to me as a witness.  This is because, during one of my rare moments of making predictions, if this legislation is passed as-is, that it would not only be subject to a court challenge, but CIPPIC would very likely become a party of that litigation at least from the constitutional side of things.  Whether they end up being a main litigant in such a case or filing an amicus brief, I would be surprised if they decide not to touch such a case after all is said and done.  So, perhapse an interesting test was whether or not Krishnamurthy would raise the issues of freedom of expression.  Here’s him answering a question from Senator Miville-Dechene.

[Krishnamurthy Clip]

So, quite the teardown of the defense that the legislation respects freedom of expression thanks to the little ‘must respect free speech’ provision tacked on to the end of the section.  For him, there is considerable concerns in regard to free speech with how the bill is currently written.  As presumptive as this sounds, if that is already on his mind, it feeds into the theory that others at CIPPIC might be of the same mind when it comes to this bill.  So, the crazy far out there guess that I have might actually be becoming less crazy sounding – even if a little bit.

The second segment of hearing 11 featured lobbyists.  Interestingly enough, the Quebec YouTube creator, Bastien, came up.  Things got surprisingly tense where Marie-Julie Desrochers basically said that the problems he would face under this legislation is not her problem.  Here’s a clip in an exchange with Senator Miville-Dechene.

[Desrochers Clip]

Wow, just wow.  Yeah, it’s all well and fine what he’s doing, so when the time comes, they are happy to just feed him to the CRTC lions.  Kind of shocking just how open the lobbyists are to destroying the careers of digital first creators, really.  I guess at this point, there is no risk to showcasing the evil intent.

Also, we were able to cover the first segment of hearing 12.  In this panel, we had two experts speak about the legislation.  While it covered a lot of similar ground from the previous hearings, there was one portion which veered into a less talked about portion of the legislation.  While most of the debate surrounded content produced by digital first creators, and that includes content produced by premium platforms and music, there was one area that didn’t get any attention up until now.  That area is adult content.

While some people in the room looked visibly uncomfortable even bringing this up, this is actually a rather weird aspect of the legislation.  The legislation actually does cover porn websites.  As one jokingly commented prior to these hearings, is that porn Canadian enough?  It sounds weird, but the former CRTC commissioner, Peter Menzies, did confirm that this legislation would, indeed, regulate such content.  In fact, he suggested that he would find it unlikely that the CRTC would simply regulate other forms of content and set aside porn websites.  I know, it sounds like a really bad joke, but they are serious about this.

In another instance, Senator Leo Housakos asked if they should just leave the legislation vague and leave it up to the CRTC to decide or if there should be amendments to make the language clear that small players are out.  A C-11 supporter got rather animated in insisting that the language should remain the same despite him earlier saying that the legislation would change nothing.  He even got in an argument with Menzies who has experience as a CRTC commissioner on top of it all.

[Armstrong and Menzies Clip]

Yes, Bill C-11 supporters are audacious enough to believe they know more about the CRTC than someone who was actually a CRTC commissioner.  I don’t know about you, but I trust the guy with the CRTC experience over the C-11 supporter.

Finally, we found out that there will be a week 6 of hearings afterwards.  That discovery hit right as we reached the cutoff point.  So, something to look forward to next month.

Moving on, this month saw yet another major political scandal unfold over the Bill C-11 hearings.  At the centre of this was non other than notorious Liberal MP, Chris Bittle.  Yes, the same guy who perpetrated the racism accusation scandal and several other political scandals is at it, yet again, and lengthening his quickly growing rap sheet.

The politician effectively tried to intimidate people who were testifying against the legislation.  To do so, he was calling for so-called “investigations” into anyone who dared to criticize the legislation.  In a letter leaked to the Globe and Mail, presumably by Bittle himself, he called for an investigation into Digital First Canada.

The letter itself was multiple months old, but it leaked just a day before Scott Benzie was set to testify.  The timing was highly suspicious. It forced Benzie to have to contact the Lobbying Commissioner multiple times to ask if there was an investigation against his organization or if there was anything that was improper or missing with the paperwork that he should be made aware of.  The Lobbying Commissioner responded that there was no active investigation against him and his organization is fully in compliance with all applicable laws.

The shocking details that the MP would attempt to intimidate anyone testifying unfavourably to the legislation made waves both in the online news realm and within the halls of government.  An MP rose on a point of order asking the Speaker to investigate.  Senators expressed disgust that the Liberals would attempt to bully witnesses into silence.

It should also be noted that Benzie, at the request of Senator Leo Housakos, tabled the confirmation e-mail he received saying that he and his organization are in compliance with all applicable laws.

Finally, there have been some fast moving developments in the Bill C-18 debate.  As you know, Bill C-18 is Canada’s link tax law.  The legislation would steal money from smaller players like Freezenet and hand it all over to larger players like the CBC, CTV, Toronto Star, and other members of the establishment.

A lone hearing was held this month, but if you followed the hearing like I did, nothing of value was given to the debate.  Conservative MPs along with Michael Geist, and Jen Gerson of The Line – a small online news organization – tried to keep the discussions surrounding the text of the legislation and the detrimental impacts it would have in focus.  Unfortunately, Liberal MPs, NDP MPs, and the slate of lobbyists spent most of the time playing political games, pushing misinformation, and even launching political attacks on anyone daring to criticize the legislation.

I won’t have you suffer through what I listened to, so I’ll just summarize some of the few key points that were made.  Gerson pointed out that the legislation would have a major detrimental impact on her business.  Further, the legislation is based on a lie that platforms are re-publishing news content and profiting off of it when, in fact, they are simply allowing people to post links to news organizations.  That is a major difference between what is being claimed and reality.

University Law Professor, Michael Geist, pointed out that had this bill been about platforms that used whole articles, it would be a very different debate.  However, most people, I would say sane people, wouldn’t count a link, a small snippet, or simply referring to a news organization by name, count as re-publishing their material that demands payments.  Further, he pointed out the many international trade obligations that this legislation violates such as the Berne Convention on quotation use among other things.

Shortly after, Google published results of a poll they conducted with Canadians about Bill C-18.  The poll was in response to a different poll conducted by Big Media pushing this legislation.  Results from Google showed that, contrary to the talking points by Big Media, Canadian’s are not well informed about the legislation and they share many of the same concerns Google has about it.

The simple fact that Google commissioned Abacus to help raise awareness about the legislation infuriated Heritage Minister, Pablo Rodriguez.  In a fit of rage and hypocrisy, the Minister accused Google of trying to avoid accountability.  So, for the minister, the action is only OK when supporters do it, it seems.

Shortly after, there were two major developments.  First, the Canadian government said that it intended on shutting down debate of Bill C-18.  The move would leave dozens of witnesses both for and against the legislation out of any potential hearings at the House of Commons level.  The news came on top of what Geist referred to as an “embarrassing” study process where so few witnesses were called to testify about the legislation.  Arguably, little attention was even focused on the text of the bill itself even when witnesses are called to testify in the first place.

Upon word that the government was shutting down debate, Facebook, one of the major platforms, said that they were “surprised not to receive an invitation to participate, particularly given public comments by lawmakers that this law is targeted at Facebook”.

Facebook further explained the following in a statement:

“Canada is incredibly important to Meta. Canadians will always be able to use Facebook to connect with friends and family, to help build communities and to grow their businesses. But faced with adverse legislation that is based on false assumptions that defy the logic of how Facebook works, we feel it is important to be transparent about the possibility that we may be forced to consider whether we continue to allow the sharing of news content in Canada.”

So, the potential for blocking all news in Canada on Facebook is, indeed, on the table for Facebook.  While that should cause some supporters to think twice about the legislation, many are content with the completely nuance free idea that Facebook said that they’d do it in Australia, but then changed course after.  Given the news lately about how little impact news has on the large platforms business model, combined with the slowdown in the global economy, that threat could have added weight to it.

Indeed, this would hurt Freezenet in the short term, but if it sends a clear message at how fundamentally stupid the idea of a link tax is in the first place, I’m all for the idea.

So, a rather large marathon of stories packed into the top three headlines this month.  Let’s take a look at some of the other stories making news this month.

Other Stories Making News

Heritage Minister, Pablo Rodriguez, caught even more controversy this month over the Bill C-11 debate.  Google, this month, released a statement on the legislation pointing out flaws of the bill.  Part of that statement reads as follows:

“In its current form, Bill C-11 would require YouTube to manipulate these systems, and surface content according to the CRTC’s priorities, rather than the interests of Canadian users. Put into practice, this means that when viewers come to the YouTube homepage, they’re served content that a Canadian Government regulator has prioritized, rather than content they are interested in.”

Rodriguez, for his part, threw yet another temper tantrum over the news, ran to CTV News, and said that Google is “trying to intimidate Canadians”.  So, apparently, Google pointing out flaws in the legislation makes them the real bullies here.  Uh huh.

Meanwhile, the CRTC has pushed the decision to grant the request of telecom giant Telus to raise their fees to the end of the year.  The request would allow Telus to pass along a 1.5% fee onto consumers with all applicable taxes if they pay with a credit card.  Obviously, the answer to this should clearly be “no”, but given the abysmal track record of the CRTC lately, it’s probably not a surprise that they didn’t immediately reject the idea.

So, quite a lot going on and, to be honest, it’s incredibly hard to keep up with it all.  Still, I think we are doing well under the circumstances and resources afforded to us.

Video Game Reviews

Of course, all that work has now made me tired, so let’s turn towards entertainment.

Before we get into the video game reviews, I wanted to point out the first impression video’s we’ve posted this month.

First up is the Steam game, Call of Duty.  You can check out that video directly on our site and on YouTube.

The Playstation 3 game of the month is Twisted Metal.  That video can be found directly on our site and on YouTube.

After that, we tried the XBox 360 game, Forza Motorsport 2.  That video can be seen on our site and on YouTube.

We then wrapped up the month with the Steam game, Return to Castle Wolfenstein.  That video can be seen on our site and on YouTube.

As always, you can subscribe to our YouTube channel and turn on notifications to get realtime updates on what video’s we’ve posted.

Now, here are video games we’ve reviewed this month:

First up is the Sega Genesis game, Sonic the Hedgehog: Spinball.  A game that sounds great on paper, but fell short on execution.  Limited features, but solid graphics and decent music make up for some of the shortcomings.  So, a game that gets a reasonably good 70%.

Next up is Dr. Robotnik’s Mean Bean Machine for the Sega Genesis.  An attempt at reimagining Puyo Puyo, but one that contains a steep difficulty curve and repetitive play.  This one gets an average 56%.

After that, we tried Iggy’s Reckin’ Balls for the Nintendo 64.  A weird name, but a game that offers a really interesting new take on combat racing.  Nice graphics and memorable soundtrack really helped take this game over the top.  This one gets a great 84%.

Finally, we finished up with Golden Axe II for the Sega Genesis.  A game with a real mix of strengths and weaknesses.  For strengths, there is an interesting problem solving nature to defeating enemies among other things. For weaknesses, there is the short length and flawed enemy AI.  So, overall, this one gets a good 70%.

Music Reviews

As for music we’ve listened to this month, we’ve got…

“Weird Al” Yankovic – The Night Santa Went Crazy

Bad Religion – A Walk

Iggy Pop – To Belong

Sting – I Hung My Head

The Barenaked Ladies – The Old Apartment

Nickelback – Fly

Dave Matthews Band – Crash Into Me

Ash – Goldfinger

… and finally, The Tragically Hip – Ahead By a Century

Picks of the Month

So, that leads us to our pick of the month.  This month, our pick of the month belongs to Iggy’s Reckin’ Balls for the Nintendo 64.  Also, be sure to check out “Weird Al” Yankovic – The Night Santa Went Crazy.


Before we close out this month’s episode, we got one quick announcement to make.  This month, we released the September Wiki content patch.  All it does is update for the latest episodes for the shows Group Therapy, Synth City, Future Sound of Egypt, Fables, Resonation, and the V Recordings Podcast.  No new episode for the Random Movement Podcast that month, so this archive remains up to date as is.  Of course, one thing to note is that while it’s just the minimum, this update also includes the 500th episode special for Group Therapy, so the “basics” actually have quite a lot of meat to them this month.

Full disclosure, I probably would have added a lot more, but this Bill C-11 business has proven to be both incredibly popular and time consuming, so I’ve been pretty focused on that as of late.

If you’d like to get your hands on some behind the scenes stuff, exclusive content, and early access material, you can check out our Patreon page at  Through this, you can help make Freezenet just that much better all the while getting some pretty cool stuff in the process.  That’s!

Alternatively, you can simply buy us a coffee via!

…and that’s this months episode for October, 2022.  I’m Drew Wilson for Freezenet.  Be sure to check out our website at for all the latest in news and reviews.  You can also follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Tumblr.  Thank you for listening and see you next month.

Drew Wilson on Twitter: @icecube85 and Facebook.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: