Experts question effectiveness of online harm regulator

Panelists reflecting Wednesday on Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault’s description of how a new regulator that could be formed through anti-online harm legislation that has yet to be tabled are critical of what one called an “opaque” process. During an interview with National Post reporter (and former Wire Report editor) Anja Karadeglija Wednesday for the think tank Canada 2020, Guilbeault said the potential new rules meant to protect Canadians are being worked on through a “multi-ministerial approach” with legislation in the final stages of development that may be tabled in the coming weeks. Guilbeault said that the Heritage Ministry consulted with civil liberties organizations, academics, human rights organizations, and other legislators, and examined regulatory approaches in Australia, where there is an eSafety commissioner that functions as a regulator. Guilbeault said five categories of illegal online activities would likely be dealt with in the first iteration of the bill, which will regulate content posted online. They are hate speech, content exploiting children, terrorism, violent content, and the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. “We’ve tried to gather as much input as possible. We’re doing this to be able to learn from what others have done: what has worked well, what maybe hasn’t worked so well. There aren’t many countries around the world that have tried to tackle this but we have some examples that we can look at,” said Guilbeault. “Freedom of speech is a core value of our democracy, but the safety of our citizens is as well. While looking at this, what we’re trying to do is to try and make sure that we are not compromising to support the other,” he said. Though the format and form of any potential regulator wouldn’t be decided until later, Guilbeault said some elements could include audit powers over how platforms are moderating their content, a 24-hour takedown rule for “illegal content”, an appeal mechanism for people or groups who believe their content was taken down unfairly, and fines for non-compliance. Executive director of Open Media Laura Tribe said following Guilbeault’s explanations that “demanding transparency from the companies on these issues while having a completely opaque process yourself feels pretty hypocritical.” Vivek Krishnamurthy, the Samuelson-Glushko Professor of Law and Director of Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) agreed. “I think there’s a lot of good intentions behind this proposal… I don’t think the government has been nearly as transparent or consultative in developing this, and frankly, I’m a little concerned that the approach seems to be replicating other governments rather than trying to strike out new ground.” “It’s clear to me and to people who study this seriously that existing approaches have not worked. If we’re going to do something to tackle this set of problems, it needs to be different,” Krishnamurthy said. He also suggested that individual countries coming up with their own models for content is a problem in trying to regulate “a global Internet.” “I think we need to be concerned about the approach that we’re taking. For a government that talks a lot about multilateralism and international cooperation, why are we doing this domestically? We could do this multilaterally. We could get together with other democratic governments and come up with a supernational set of guidelines to govern online content providers,” he said. He also raised concerns about the “darkest corners” of the internet and alternative “free speech” platforms like Gab and Parler where dangerous content proliferates and how they might be reached. Will Perrin, trustee at Carnegie Trust UK said “what everyone is gingerly trying to find their way towards, if I’m very frank about it I think, is a process that the United States’ Biden administration is willing to take a part in because there’s no sign yet because the Biden administration is so new… as to what their demeanor will be towards their big companies which are being regulated around the world.” Krishnamurthy said rather than ruling how platforms have to moderate content, it may be better to regulate their business models. “We might be looking at the wrong thing to regulate. We’re talking about regulating content, we’re talking about prompt takedowns, we’re not talking about the business models of the large companies, which is precisely what’s causing a lot of these problems.” Guilbeault was also asked about the potential for using blocking orders, which could pre-screen posts before they go public for harmful content. Guilbeault said it would likely be a last resort “nuclear bomb” in the regulator’s toolbox if included at all, not something to be used at will. “That is a dangerous step towards massive censorship in the country if we’re considering upload filters that pre-screen and censor content before it’s posted because context is so variable and it is really hard for people to get it right, let alone for computers to get it right,” Tribe said. -Reporting by Hannah Daley at hdaley@thewirereport.ca and editing by Michael Lee-Murphy at mleemurphy@thewirereport.ca

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us

Experts question effectiveness of online harm regulator

News | March 31, 2021

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Related Stories

Watchdogs find deceptive privacy practices across majority of websites, apps studied

Privacy tribunal unlikely to get through INDU’s look at Bill C-27

Privacy tribunal needed in Digital Charter, ISED continues to tell MPs

Privacy commissioner flags excessive site blocking, privacy risks in age verification bill

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us