Online harms panel finds diverging opinions on content removal for planned legislation

The removal of problematic content online remains a heavily debated issue for experts consulted on Canada’s controversial online harms bill. Friday, the expert advisory group appointed by Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez to assist the department in drafting the planned legislation released a workshop summary on its proposed approaches. The advisory group wrote in its summary that, with exception to child sexual exploitation and content that “explicitly” calls for violence, experts “diverged” on wether the government should mandate the removal of content online, while the panel ultimately supported a "a risk-based approach to regulation, anchored in a duty to act responsibly," according to the summary. The panel decided that the services to be regulated should fulfill three key steps: have regulated services identify and assess risks posed by their service, mitigate those risks, and report on identification and mitigation tools. The mandated removal of online content deemed harmful to users has been the main point of contention since the idea of the bill was first introduced. Some stakeholders argue that it would violate freedom of speech. Those for the removal of a broader range of content argued that it is best to err on the side of caution, while those against, argued that the government should focus on a risk management approach. The over-removal of content could disproportionately affect marginalized groups, according to the summary. “Many experts emphasized that there is a range of options between simply deciding whether to leave content up or take it down,” the summary states. The advisory group found that there was a majority consensus to use a “duty to act responsibly” model to protect users from harmful content online. The concept of “duty of care” in law refers to a fiduciary responsibility held by companies to make decisions that will not harm the public they serve, for example, a duty to keep users safe from harmful activity on online platforms. “They explained that the information gathered through the accountability step would then feed into the services’ next round of risk assessment. This cycle would promote continuous improvement of services’ systems and tools aimed at reducing the risk they pose to users,” the summary reads. The experts consulted by the advisory group largely conceded that children must have “enhanced protections because of their inherent vulnerability, an area where existing laws governing digital spaces fall short.” Online services should be obligated to assess and mitigate risks posed to children specifically while implementing safety by design tools, user-reporting mechanisms, an independent avenue for user appeal, and remove content harmful to children in a timely manner. “The equities associated with the removal of child pornography are different than other kinds of content, in that context simply does not matter with such material. In comparison, other types of content like hate speech may enjoy Charter protection in certain contexts,” the summary reads. Experts also diverged on whether the regulated services should be forced to proactively monitor content. “They stated that it is very challenging to justify such a scheme as it introduces risks to fundamental rights and freedoms under the Charter. Other experts emphasized that services should be compelled to proactively monitor their platforms, as such monitoring, in many cases, could effectively prevent a violent attack.” The experts agreed that those regulated services should be third-party services that host content, such as App Stores, Web Hosting services, and Content Delivery Networks, and exclude personal websites or blogs. Experts disagree on whether the legal responsibility for posting content should fall on the individual user or the host service. Under the former option, services would still have a duty to act responsibly because the regime would be “about injecting transparency and accountability into how online services operate,” the summary notes. The government originally intended to regulate five categories on content: hate speech, terrorist content, incitement to violence, child sexual exploitation, and the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. Experts disagreed on those categories with some arguing it is “deeply problematic” because the categories are “seen to perpetuate biases found in their corresponding Criminal Code provisions.” “For instance, they expressed that there are issues with the definition of terrorism as it almost exclusively deals with Islamic terror and omits other forms of terrorism.” Others said that terrorism content and child exploitation material are particularly harmful and should be addressed in an “unambiguous manner” in separate legislation. Rodriguez is now set to consult on the advisory group's findings with industry stakeholders. – Reporting by Jenna Cocullo at jcocullo@thewirereport.ca and editing by Michael Lee-Murphy at mleemurphy@thewirereport.ca.

Online harms panel finds diverging opinions on content removal for planned legislation

News | July 8, 2022

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

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us

Online harms panel finds diverging opinions on content removal for planned legislation

News | July 8, 2022

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

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Related Stories

Meta considers blocking Facebook news in Australia

CMPA accuses Corus of non-compliance, seeks appeal of regulatory relief

Streamers ‘disappointed’ in five per cent base contribution requirement

CRTC grants Corus, TVA CanCon relief; other BDUs must wait

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us