Nuanced. - 153. Michael Geist: Problems with the Online Harms Act, TikTok Ban & Antisemitism in Canada

Episode Date: April 11, 2024

Michael Geist delves into the troubling rise of antisemitism in Canada, highlighting the challenges Jewish students encounter in academia and its broader societal effects. He also scrutinizes the Online Harms Act, assessing its ability to curb online hate while maintaining free expression, all discussed alongside host Aaron Pete.Michael Geist is a prominent Internet and e-commerce law expert. He holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa. An advocate for digital rights, Geist influences public policy on privacy, copyright, and access to information. His work, featured in national and international publications and his widely-read blog, positions him as a key figure in shaping discussions on internet governance and digital freedoms.Send us a textThe "What's Going On?" PodcastThink casual, relatable discussions like you'd overhear in a barbershop....Listen on: Apple Podcasts   SpotifySupport the shownuancedmedia.ca

Welcome back to another episode of the Bigger Than Me podcast. Here is your host, Aaron P. There's a rise in anti-Semitism in Canada and it concerns me. I don't find that our political leaders are speaking out enough against it. I'm speaking with a prominent voice on this issue and the Online Harm's Act. My guest today is Michael Geist. Michael, thank you so much for being willing to sit back down. It was such an honor to speak with you the first time.

briefly, would you mind reintroducing yourself for people who might not be acquainted? Yeah, sure, happy too. And thanks again for having me on. My name is Michael Geist. I'm a law professor at the University of Ottawa, where I hold the Canada Research Chair in Internet and e-commerce law, which essentially means that I sort of, I focus on many ways the intersection between law, policy, and technology. And I've been pretty active on, especially some of the government's recent proposals on trying to do exactly that. We have a lot to cover. The first area that I'd like to talk to you about is what's happened since October 7th and the events that have been going on. You've been very vocal and I've had the opportunity to follow your work

specifically on LinkedIn and the posts you make and I find that you have very thoughtful responses to what's going on and you wrote a great article about some of the events that have taken place and the anti-Semitism. Would you mind covering some of the work that's gone on since October 7th? Sure. It's a challenging issue. I have to say that You know, what we've witnessed on the streets in Canada and, frankly, around the world is something that I must say I never would have imagined. I can appreciate that there are different perspectives on what's taking place in Israel and in Gaza right now. I have my own. I know there are others who may have a different view.

But to see the spillover of anti-Semitism and hate onto the streets in Canada, online in Canada, to see it in many other places where I remember the Jewish community and to see so many. and the Jewish community really put at risk with the kinds of activities and targets that we've seen at Jewish community centers, at schools, at Jewish-owned businesses, at various communities, at hospitals, sometimes disingenuously claimed that it's not the target, although it just certainly feels like it's not random. And I don't think we've seen leaders step up in the way that that we ought to have seen. And there seems to be, not only is there little stopping it, but if anything, it continues to accelerate and what becomes seemingly for some acceptable or normal just continues to escalate in a way that, as I say, I must have been,

I never really thought would have been imaginable in a country like ours. Can you help us understand this issue from your perspective? Because I look at it as a First Nations person, and if some of the things that you've posted, about that have been put out about Jewish people were done about First Nations people. We would be putting in new laws. We would be working incredibly hard. I feel like there would be rallies, there would be protests, there would be an overwhelming response to some of the things that have been said. And it's been shocking for me to watch because, again, if I put myself in that circumstance and if it said a different name other than a Jewish person, I imagine that the response would be incredibly overwhelmingly strong and politicians would be

would be coming out. What is going on? Why is there this difference? Yeah, I feel the same way you do. I say that as a Jewish person, but I think back to the kinds of issues that have arisen where different communities have felt targeted and needed support over the years, whether that was Black Lives Matter, whether that was issues around reconciliation that we've seen and what we learned about broadly for many of us around residential schools and the desire to step up, whether it's some of the misogyny that we've seen take place at times where women have been targets, and it feels like communities have come together. And in this instance, almost from day one, almost from October 8th, the Jewish community has felt targeted. I realize that there are differences of

opinion about Israel's response to what was the worst massacre since the Holocaust for the Jewish community and that don't think it should surprise anyone that the Jewish community still reeling from that, Israel still reeling from that, has responded. And as I say, there are different views about that response. But regardless, the targeting of the community, at times simply using the term Zionist for the kind of language that frankly would have never been acceptable. I mean, to talk about Jewish doctors and Jewish lawyers or Jewish politicians in ways that, you know, has strong anti-Semitic notions and connotations, oftentimes it's directly anti-Semitic and to think that it's okay, but I put, I called them a Zionist instead. I personally think is wrong. And,

you know, for years, there's, there's been debate around what's known as the IRA definition, a definition dealing with anti-Semitism. And one of the concerns was that it might limit the ability to criticize Israel, even as one does not intend to be anti-Semitic. And the Definition, you know, sought to make the case that at that times that some of those criticisms do go over the line. And, you know, I must admit, there were times or I wasn't really sure where I would fall on that, but to see what I've seen over the last number of months highlights that I actually think that the concerns that were expressed through that definition, I think actually were entirely accurate. And as I say, we see speech, we see threats, we see

activities that, I think you're right, targeted at any other community would have been unacceptable. Leaders would not be afraid to speak out. They would be kind of lining up at the podium to speak out. And I think we would see law enforcement and other community leaders being far more aggressive in seeking to ensure that, frankly, that all Canadians, regardless of their perspectives on these kinds of issues, feel safe. And that's, frankly, something that where we are not at right now in Canada.

I'm sorry to ask you to do this, but I do imagine that some of my listeners don't keep up with the news to the same extent. They may not have a full grasp of what took place on October 7th. Would you feel comfortable somewhat summarizing the events that took place that day? You mentioned that it's right up there with the Holocaust. Would you mind just for those individuals who might not have kept up with it or understood the gravity of the situation? Right. Well, to be clear, it is not right up there with the Holocaust. Holocaust. Holocaust involved the mass murder of 6 million Jews and another million or more of other ethnicities. But it was the Jewish community that was the most targeted. In my case, it was quite literally many members of my family were wiped out. This was not that, to be absolutely clear. But it was the largest number of Jews that were killed in a single day since the Holocaust.

And in that instance, Hamas, a known terrorist organization registered as a terrorist organization in Canada, came in, came in from the Gaza Strip into Israel and engaged, frankly, in activities, in barbaric activities that remain unimaginable, killing whole families, killing children in front of the parents, and then killing the parents burning many of those individuals. engaging in now confirmed yet again by a UN official engaging in white in sexual assault, rape of some of the very worst kind, targeting both Kibbutzim, these communities that were located near the Gaza Strip, targeting a no music festival, the Nova music festival. And there were victims from many, many different parts of the world. It wasn't just people from Israel. And then along, that, taking several hundred hostages, and there are still over 100 hostages that are still there. And when we're talking about hostages, in some instances, quite literally talking about babies, talking about elderly women, and to, you know, under any circumstance, we would see that as just an act of terror that is almost without parallel in terms of our thinking. I mean, we tend to think back to 9-11, and yet the scale, particularly relative to the sides of Israel, was so much more dramatic.

The barbarism that took place was so much more dramatic. And so, from my perspective, unsurprisingly, Israel has taken a position that that simply can't happen again, and that the perpetrators of that, Hamas, who embed themselves within communities, within civilians, has to be destroyed. I mean, they simply can't have that capability to do that again. That is a lot to take in. And I somewhat don't want to get into the what aboutisms about what's actually going on in the conflict. And I know that there's more expert voices on those topics than I could ever provide or questions that could be asked that I wouldn't be able to go to those depths on.

So I don't really want to get into the conflict. But people here in Canada have really nothing to do with what's going on over there. Jewish people living their life with their families, they're not involved in that conflict in a direct way. And so they deserve peace, happiness, the pursuit of happiness. They deserve to be able to live a normal life. And it seems like they're being targeted and they're not involved. Would you mind explaining why Canadians are being targeted when they're so far from the conflict here in Canada? Right. Well, listen, there are people both, of course, who, who, We're left reeling from October 7th and responded to that.

There are people who have seen the response, and obviously it's been awful to see what has taken place in Gaza since. It's tragic to see the amount of death that's taken place and want something and want that to stop. I'd submit the way to make that stop is for Hamas to stop. But nevertheless, I understand there are strong perspectives on all sides when it comes to this particular issue. But rather than targeting with protests, and of course, protests are legit as long as they don't bleed into violence and other unlawful activities, but making one's views no to the Israeli government via a consulate or an embassy, to the Canadian government, via Parliament Hill or other places to sort of try to influence their views on this, strike me as wholly legitimate. But one of the things that we have seen is targeting, as I say, we've seen shots fired at Jewish schools, graffiti and other violence at Jewish community centers, targeted vandalism at Jewish-owned businesses, really echoes of, frankly, of the Holocaust, of Nazi Germany when we saw some of those take place. I'm not saying this is Nazi Germany, but there are certainly echoes in terms of kind of how Jews have been targeted in this way. I think that happens, of course, because Israel is identified as the one state that has been representative to the Jewish people.

And so Jews are seen as somehow responsible for this. It does seem to me that much of what takes place is really almost this flowering of anti-Semitism that may have been lated, that may not have been as visible for a long period of time. But I guess I have a hard time believing that surely some of this must have been there before. and this is provided for some at least a convenient excuse to exercise some of those views. What is anti-Semitism from your perspective? Well, anti-Semitism to me is really understood right now as targeting Jews and Jewish community as Jews. It's in some instances, targeting them in an unfair or biased manner.

It is vilifying them. It is engaging, frankly, in hate towards the community. And as I say, in some of the protests, we see some of that taking place in ways that are, I know, for my community, very scary. You mentioned that some of this, not all of this started after October 7th, that this somewhat existed prior. Why do you think that is? How do you process that as a person? And I, again, put myself in the shoes of, like, I'm a First Nations person. And so if people hated me, I'd be like, well, like, if there was this dislike, I just, I can't imagine it in any other circumstance.

And it makes me uncomfortable to think that this has existed and continues to exist. It's just hard for my brain to even wrap myself around this concept. Well, listen, I mean, anti-Semitism is one of the oldest forms of hatred in many ways. I mean, Jews have been facing this. for literally millennia, as we've gone through periods where gone from community to community, rarely having a space that was a protected space and oftentimes being driven from different kinds of communities viewed as the other. And, you know, obviously there's many communities that face some of that. I think it's important to recognize Jewish communities exist in communities around the world.

This is not just sort of European, white communities. but more than half of Israel are people that are coming from different parts of the Arab world or the Middle East from Africa from other parts in the world. It is a true melting pot in many respects in terms of people coming from a great many different places. And the fact that this has been something that has recurred again and again and again is also, I think, is hard for me to wrap my. my brain around. And I feel as someone privileged to have been born and raised in Canada,

although the descendant of Holocaust survivors, that I felt that much of this was put behind us, that there was a, that there's a safety in Canada, that this was gone. But I must admit, post-October 7th has been a wake-up call, I think, for many, that in fact, it seems that for each generation, the Jewish community will often face some of these issues, and it feels like we're facing it yet again. You mentioned in one of your articles that politicians have remained relatively silent on this issue. Would you mind elaborating? Sure. It's, you know, listen, and I think you did a nice, you know, you made, I think, appropriate comment to say that, you know, if this had targeted other communities, I think that we would, that politicians would not be reticent to speak out. And I

I think too often they have been in this case. I think in the early instances there was an attempt to sort of just frame this broadly as, you know, please don't engage in hate, try to create equivalencies that I don't think we're there, especially early on where I think the Jewish community has been really the target. I think there's been Islamophobia as well. I think we need to speak out against that as well. But I mean, the sheer numbers tell us quite clearly that the Jewish community, oftentimes a very, very small part of a community are often the most targeted community for hate crimes in city after city across Canada. And I think our federal politicians have often not spoken clearly and unequivocally in the way that they could and should. And I think the same is true often in our local communities. You know, it's often the mayor's chiefs of police that we look to. I mean, there are some laws on the books. We can debate about the application of those laws. But what should be on debate is that we require and need community leaders to step up. We need people who are not Jewish to step up and speak out as well.

And there certainly have been many that have, but I can tell you candidly that I know that there are many people that feel a sense of betrayal, that they may have been active, that Jewish communities stood side by side on other issues, and yet there has been relative silence at times when it comes to this issue. And that's certainly discouraging and it's a little bit hard to take. David Eby, our premier here in British Columbia, has just come out and said that he's going to end anti-Semitism. And it sounds like our province, which is ambitious to say the least. But this is after one of the cabinet ministers just stepped down saying that the provincial government wasn't doing enough. Do you have any perspectives on kind of the response to the lack of response?

Listen, you know, Suley Robinson, who's, I know the cabinet minister, former cabinet minister that you're talking about, you know, acknowledged what she had said was wrong, apologized for it. I think we have seen many instances where politicians say things that, that may have been a mistake. We've seen it in this, on these issues, on a number of occasions, and those apologies have, you know, when they've been forthcoming, they've often been accepted. in the case of the one most prominent active Jewish minister in that government, it apparently wasn't enough. And, you know, I think she went and burned down the house a little bit on her way out by making clear how she had felt, how she had been treated, and the challenges that she had faced as a Jewish member of cabinet.

And so I'm happy that the Premier E.B. says he's going to address anti-Semitism, I don't think he is going to end it in the way that no one else has been, no one's been able to end it. But it does feel like it comes, it comes late and it comes, you know, it comes having failed to address what was a recurring issue that was clearly evident at least to one of his most notable members of cabinet. And nothing happened until it was in a sense too late. How do you feel about the federal government's response, Justin Trudeau's response? It does seem like it's very hard to figure out where they stand on the wall. right now and what their actual position is. It is hard to, it is hard. It feels like, well, in some

ways it feels that it's easy. It feels that it's driven primarily by electoral calculations as opposed to core principles. And I can appreciate that the government may have, you know, is trying to balance a number of perspectives when it comes to the war. But I don't think there's anything to balance when it comes to dealing with, with clear signs of hate. And it's discouraging when you know when we see leaders and includes the prime minister sort of fall back on the line that you know this isn't us this isn't Canadians it turns out it is it turns out that this is part of what we see in Canada and it requires real leadership from all leaders including the prime minister to try to do something about it brilliant did you see the comments made by

claudine gay at the congressional hearing yes I certainly did do you have any thoughts that you'd be able to share on her response to questions about anti-Semitism and her leadership's response. Yeah. I mean, I watched that clip, I think, over and over and over again, because I couldn't quite believe what I was hearing. And I realized there are elements of theater to all of that, but, you know, the seeming inability of university presidents is, presidents, rather, to take an unequivocal stand against the calling for genocide, which I believe was the just of the question, was just mind-boggling. And, you know, I know that Jewish community students,

on many campuses, both in the United States and some in Canada, have not felt safe. And at times, the campuses and university leaders have been slow to respond as well. And it's, you know, of course, you know, we see future leaders are coming out of there. and we're left to wonder a little bit how there isn't the ability to speak clearly on that issue as well. To be clear, academic freedom is absolutely essential and people should be able to have protection in that regard.

But that doesn't extend necessarily to say certainly anything you like in a classroom environment that leaves people feeling unsafe. And even more just generally, it seems to me that we in the academic world, with my own university, have made a point of emphasizing the need for robust discussion and debate, but within a safe space where everyone feels comfortable and treated with respect. And I feel that that has at times, I'm not going to say that that's at my institution,

but I will say that there's certainly been institutions where it feels, where we know that there are students, faculty members that don't feel safe. There's this incoherence that I'm having trouble squaring in regards to diversity, and inclusion, safe spaces, anti-bullying rules, like all of these initiatives that speak to this idea that we need to be able to do all of this work in a good way, everybody deserves to be represented, we should make space for everyone in the room, and a lot of those initiatives are pushed forward in the interests of the black community, indigenous people, minority groups, and then it seems like that all went out the window with Claudine Gay's testimony.

Like it just did not seem, like I couldn't see the consistency among all of these initiatives that I hear about all the time. And then these comments seem to not be consistent with any of that all of a sudden. I must admit it feels that way to me as well. I'm a supporter of those initiatives. I feel that we have, we've done, and we can need to continue to do more to ensure exclusivity, inclusivity rather and opportunity for for all and at times there have been communities that have not had those opportunities and so I see it certainly in my own institution and I'm glad that we have tried to make efforts to ensure that we can include as many different perspectives

and voices and try to have faculty and student bodies that are more reflective of the diversity of our country which I think is one of the great things that we have but at the same time, I am at times left to wonder why, when it comes to some of the initiatives designed to ensure a comfort level for all that somehow Jews don't seem to count, and I don't understand why. I don't understand why either, but you did make an amazing post. It didn't end up airing on the Super Bowl, I don't think, but it was this amazing video about how this can be addressed. And it was of this woman with her child heading out, coming home and seeing an anti-Semitic trope on their garage wall, and then their neighbor while they were out coming and cleaning off and repainting and fixing it.

And it was that reminder for me that one person can make a difference, that this is addressable at the ground level over time if we come together and we start to work together to be proud of all ethnicities, all cultures, all values, and work to work. uplifting the best of ourselves. And I loved that because that's really what this podcast is about. It's thinking bigger than yourself and being proud of other people and standing by them and doing it when you might not get the recognition, but moving the world in that direction. What did that add mean to you? Yeah, I know. Thank you for that. And thank you for this podcast that you, that you are taking that perspective and airing those issues. I'm really grateful. And I agree with you.

that ad. You know, I think for those in the Jewish community, this is a lived experience. So they recognize it. But, you know, as I think this conversation is highlighting, you're doing a great job of highlighting the fact that there are many that don't see this. And, you know, the Super Bowl, I suppose, provided an opportunity to bring this to attention of, obviously, a large audience, is one of the largest audience, television audiences of the year. And I think those kinds of initiatives at trying to educate are critically important. And, you know, we're at a time that feels, I'm assuming it's pretty dark right now. It's really difficult.

But at the same time, seeing other communities come forward to say this is wrong and wishing to speak out and to educate others about why it's wrong, provides a bit of light about potential way forward. And just to share my personal perspective, as like an indigenous person to this land, I feel like when we're having these conversations in Canada, when we talk about reconciliation and coming back together, A, I think we need to appreciate that people have come over to this country for a very long time and we have been welcoming and I know people like to take the trope that we didn't want those outsiders or there were those early issues. We wouldn't have Métis people if there wasn't some camaraderie among people coming here as immigrants and moving here and coming together. We wouldn't have that distinct culture. And I think they are a symbol of us coming together, breaking bread and sharing the best of ourselves. And I think that should be highlighted, but we should also work towards that into the future, that the best of us come to this country and we work hard and we share our gifts and our uniqueness.

And that's what enriches our culture. It strengthens our social fabric. It makes it a more interesting place. And this is one of my favorite places I've gotten to travel, but I'm so proud to come from here. And when I see this news, it's frustrating. And when I see a leader not standing up against hate, discrimination, disrespect, anti-Semitism. It's hard to watch because that's not my Canada. That's not the values that we stood on 100 years ago, 150 years ago,

and that's not the way forward that's going to make us stronger. It makes us more vulnerable. It makes us more divisive, less clear on issues and less willing to trust each other in the grocery store. And that's just not a Canada that I want to live in. It's not a province I want to live in. It's not a community I want to live in. I want anybody to be able to come forward on issues, and that's to hear them out and work towards solutions,

no matter how small, because that's what. What makes us trust the system, other people, when you go in and you're doing your taxes or you're going to your account, you want to know that you're going to have that good rapport. And when people don't get that, that makes them feel disconnected from the community. And that's not how you want people to feel when we're talking about mental health, wellness, and living a full and meaningful life. And so having your post is a constant reminder that I can play a role in this, that I can be a leader on these issues in ways small and big to try and push issues for it and make sure that we have constructive. conversations. So I appreciate all of the posts you've made about that. Oh, well, thank you for that. Thank you for those thanks. But even more, thank you for what you just said. You know, that's a vision of Canada that I entirely agree with. This is, you know,

I too have traveled a lot and I always come home and I come home because this is a country that has so much to offer. And I've long believed that diversity is truly is our strength, and perhaps the most important strength that we have. I see it in my classrooms. I see it in my communities. And it makes it particularly painful where one group within those communities are left to feel unsafe

and targeted in the way that we've seen. And when at times leaders don't step up to try to preserve and affirm the very best in Canada, which at times I don't feel like that we've seen enough of at least from some of our leaders. Agreed. Now let's get on to some laws that have been coming through the Online Harms Act. Would you mind sharing what that is and what your perspective is? Okay. Changing the channel in certain respects, but not completely so.

Because online hate is in fact one of the elements within Bill C-63. And so Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act, is essentially the third of the government's three intended digital law. So they started some of your viewers and listeners may recall with Bill C-10, which became Bill C-11, which was the online streaming bill. Then we had Bill C-18, which was the online news bill. The Online Harms Act was really designed as the third in those. And so all of them, in a sense, were supposed to be about addressing the responsibility of large Internet platforms, either with respect to culture and streaming, broadcast-type activities or news, or now the harms that may take place on their platforms. platforms. So that's the bill. The government had intended to bring it forward several years ago, but they held a consultation and were roundly criticized, frankly, from groups from across the

political spectrum and a wide range of people who were really concerned with what they had in mind. And to their credit, went back to the drawing board. They created an expert panel. They attempted to try to address some of the concerns. And at least with respect to those questions, the questions of the responsibility of internet platforms when it comes to these issues. I think they've done a pretty good job. We can get into it if you like. The bill has attracted a fair amount of criticism, though. And one of the reasons for that is that that's not all the bill does.

It also includes changes to the criminal code, changes to the Human Rights Commission, that or Human Rights Act, that have, I think, rightly created some amount of concerns. So this is a bill that is perhaps better than we might have expected, based on the, the, prior experience with the other bills, but there is still some room for improvements and, frankly, some elements that I think the government would be best off removing altogether. What are some of the things that you have concerns about in regards to the act? Okay, so, thanks to that. So as I say, this is a bill that is really in some ways at least two bills in one. There's the internet platform part of the bill.

You know, what responsibility do internet platforms or should internet platforms have with respect to various harms that take place online. And then there is this second element that isn't about the internet platforms at all, but is about hate, both online and offline, which creates some provisions dealing specifically that make changes to both the criminal code and then to the Human Rights Act. If I focus first on the internet platform piece, which is the largest part of the bill, and as I say was at least initially intended as the core part of that bill. I think they got some of the basic issues right in terms of identifying some specific harms, creating duties that are appropriate. It wasn't all about just taking down content,

but rather it was trying to identify a new duty, a duty to act responsibly on the part of platforms and then trying to flesh out a little bit what that might mean. And I think they did a pretty good job of that. If I do have a concern with that aspect of the bill, it's the enforcement piece because it envisions creating a whole new entity, a digital safety commission, and I think that that is not as well developed as it needs to be. There's a lot of power that is being vested in this new commission. There isn't, I don't think, enough oversight. There are real concerns about the power and then the constraints on that power and the oversight. And so I think there is work that still needs to be done on that issue, on the

elements of sort of the duties and the harms, I think, as I say, it's a pretty good starting point that I'm sure will be tweaked, but the government did a pretty reasonable job with. Is there concerns around censorship in this bill? Yeah, so people have raised concerns. I must admit, I don't think the major concerns come out of the Online Harm's Act piece, the piece with the Internet platforms. There are a couple of instances that are kinds of content that are identified, potentially. is the sort of content that might be taken down, but those are really only two. It's content that sexually victimizes a child or intimate content that's communicated without consent, often referred to as revenge porn. So those two kinds of content, the law speaks or the bill speaks

to the need to remove in an expeditious fashion within 24 hours. There is still a review process afterwards that may involve putting the content back if it's not found to have violated the law. but by and large, it's not a law that seeks to sort of remove content off the bat, which I think is a good thing. Where there have been concern, where, so I don't think that there are as significant concerns. I mean, there are concerns. There are always going to be some concerns about where we strike the balance on freedom of expression, but the censorship issues don't come into play within that framework nearly to the extent to which they do around the criminal code and human. and Rights Act side. And just quickly, one reason for that is that platforms, of course,

already may remove content. They will have guidelines about what's appropriate and what isn't. And this law doesn't, except for the couple pieces of kinds of content that I mentioned, does not sort of prescribe more takedowns. That might be where the policy lands in some instances, but that's not sort of the go-to approach. Where there are concerns, I think rightly so, around potential censorship or even more, perhaps, chilling of speech comes from the criminal code and even more of the Human Rights Act provisions. The criminal code concerns stem at least in part from concerns that there are penalties that are included there that are viewed as being, I think, rightly so disproportionate relative to potentially the crime. And in the case of the

Human Rights Act, this re-invokes an approach that we used to have, but then was taken away, and now it's being brought back again, which allows people to bring complaints about communications of hatred to the Human Rights Commission. There are concerns, I think, with some justification that that may result in sort of almost a weaponizing of the system, where we start seeing complaints flow back and forth. I mean, we just spent the first, you know, a bunch of your podcast talking specifically about some of this kind of hate, one could well imagine. Groups on either side using this system to file a whole series of complaints, there's liability

that accrues to that. Of course, that can have a chilling effect. And I'm not sure that it deals with some of the fundamental issues that we have been talking about, whether it is that kind of hate that we see or even about concerns related to the amplification of that hatred at times on various platforms. It doesn't deal with those issues. And so I think we could have a reasonable debate about it. I think, frankly, the government could have excluded it altogether, brought it forward as a separate bill.

And to some of your earlier question said, one of the ways we want to lead with hatred or combating hatred is with this legislation that deals with some criminal code changes or human rights act changes, specifically in an attempt to try to say, we want to increase the penalties or we want to find ways to ensure that the laws fit for purpose in this regard. But instead, by bringing it all together in this almost omnibus bill, I think they may be putting the whole thing at risk. Vashi Kaplos did an interview with a Facebook whistleblower who had left to talk about some of the problems that exist internally with big tech companies in regards to the information that they're forced to share with the general public and with researchers to understand how they deal with it. And from her perspective, my understanding was that she felt that these companies weren't doing enough. to address it and they knew internally if they put more budget towards addressing some of the hate online that they could have a significant impact in that they knew their platforms were having an impact they just didn't want to put in the money to address it and the the whistleblower on on the shows commended this

bill and supported it because one of the big pieces that it sounds like it's going to do is give access to some of the background research on the impacts and making sure that the companies actually follow through is that your understanding as well It is my understanding that that's what the government has in mind, and I am aware that, you know, there obviously has supporters. So it is my understanding. I think there may be value. I think you can make the case.

There is value in that research side. I think there are some risks associated with it, though. You know, we shouldn't forget, for example, that the Cambridge Analytica case, which really became sort of the really almost the preeminent privacy case from Facebook where there were a lot of concerns. came out of a research initiative. And so there are risks associated with this. And I think that we will need careful study to ensure that, you know, the benefits that can accrue from providing the ability to engage in that research are there. But at the same time, we've taken steps to mitigate against potential risks or harms that could arise from that.

That said, I do see the opening up of data for research purposes, as somewhat separate from requirements to be more transparent about policies and approaches that the companies have, providing more data about how they've gone ahead and actually dealt with those issues. So I do see, though, there are clearly real benefits with some access, but it's the transparency piece that I think is in many ways even more important because what the legislation talks about is a requirement to put forward a digital safety plan. that will require the platforms, whether Facebook or otherwise, to be much more open and candid about what it is that they do and then provide real data on what it is that they've done.

And, you know, I think legislation that advances that objective, I think that part of it is actually a really good aspect of the bill. I know you're not a political analyst, but Pierre took a swing at this bill right out of the gate before even reading it. criticized it. What are your thoughts on his initial critique? And do you think his position is going to move? Yeah, it's a great question. You know, I've been a little puzzled, frankly, by some of the conservative positions, not just on this bill, but there's another bill, Bill S210, which is a bill designed to limit, to create age verification for kids trying to access pornography, which of course, who would generally be against that, except for the privacy risks associated with age verification technologies, the prospect of website blocking, the broad approach that actually targets not just pornographic sites, but search engines, social media companies. There's a lot of problems with this bill.

Conservative government, so far, conservative party so far, has been pretty supportive of that bill. It's been a bit of a, I'm a bit surprised to see that given some of the risks associated with that bill. And on this bill, you know, I can't say I'm at all surprised. that to the extent to which there are concerns about censorship and speech, well, you know, that's been, that's pretty on brand for the party to speak out against it. And I'm grateful that they have if there's overstepping. At the same time, it does seem to me certainly some of the children are children-related harms and even some of the other harms, whether on violence or or on hate, are the sorts of things that I would have thought most could agree on. We may

disagree on how we get there. And it seems to me that there really is. and remains an avenue to be supportive of the good elements in the bill while at the same time taking a strong position against places where the bill has overstepped. And we'll see if the positions evolve over time as we record this is still pretty early days. The legislation hasn't been debated yet in the House, obviously still going to head to committee. So I think there is still space for, frankly, for the government to adjust and for opposition parties to calibrate their positions on that bill. Should we ban TikTok?

No. That's the easiest question you've asked. Because you've had a bunch of hard ones. No, we should not. There are, that doesn't mean we shouldn't regulate TikTok. But banning in this instance, first of all, is likely to be ineffective. People will still be able to access the app. It just won't be updated if ever were to be banned.

it's likely to increase the power of some of its competitors, and so we end up with more dominance for Instagram, let's say. I'm not sure that that's necessarily a great thing. But most fundamentally, it seems to me that a strong case of the national security risks haven't really been made, and the concerns that arise out of social media apps, which are very real, whether it is privacy or competition or disinformation campaigns, there are a whole series of different risks that are associated with them. Those are not exclusive to TikTok. And so I would much prefer to see governments ensure that they've got widely applicable regulations that deal with some of those issues, as opposed to singling out a single entity, presumably

because it's, has the connections to China, as opposed to trying to grapple more directly with, let's say, disinformation, which is a very real issue. And certainly, in democracies, you know, thinking about or, you know, looking ahead to election campaigns, whether the one this year in the United States or probably a year from now in Canada, we need to deal with those kinds of issues. I'm not convinced that banning a single app is going to do that, though. We've seen an increase in F. Trudeau signs. We've seen a lot of pushback against his leadership over, I would say, the past six months,

a larger and larger response. If I look at any of the recent polls, he's not doing well in popularity. A lot of that is just, I think, politicians have a shelf life and they start to reach that. You certainly don't strike me as a partisan person by any stretch of the imagination. So this isn't a partisan question about the current leader of the day. It's more just what are your thoughts on him as a leader? Where is he at? When you look at all the laws that he's put forward, I'm just curious as to what your perspective is,

because you really get into the understanding of what are some of the ideas that he's bringing forward in some of these documents. I know he's not writing of himself, but his government has put forward so many ideas over his tenure. What are your thoughts on Justin Trudeau? You know, I think that there are things that the government has done that are with us to stay that I think are really good things. You know, I think the emphasis on, you know, even symbolic emphasis, and it's not purely symbolic, but even just the ability to say that a gender equal cabinet that we want to ensure that there are opportunities for women, they want to ensure that there are opportunities for people coming from all different perspectives, I think has

been a really valuable contribution and one that was perhaps more controversial or something we'd never seen in Canada before we saw it. And so I think we see that. I think some of the things that have been done on child care have provided real opportunities for people. So I think people that look at a government's record and see only the negative. And I know that there are people out there. I think, so, you know, miss something, there are always going to be shades of gray, and any government that's been in power this long is going to make mistakes and is going to do some things that are, that many of us will agree with. I think, you know, I think they, of course, made some mistakes during COVID, but I think

they also did a lot of things right during COVID as well. And that was, you know, they moved quickly to try to address any number of issues, which I think was a good thing. That said, I think that Much of the promise that the government had when it first came into power around issues that, some of the issues that I focus, transparency and access to information, consultative approaches on things, we've seen those diminish over time. And, you know, I think it's undeniable that on some of those issues, they simply haven't lived up to what they promised on. On other of those issues, it's become, I think, a more defensive posture. and I find that discouraging. And as you say, perhaps it is that all governments run out of steam after a period of time. And, you know, certainly it's hard to escape the conclusion that in this instance, at a minimum,

even if you're a supporter of that government, I think it's undeniable that many of the kinds of principles and things that that government stood for when running for office back in 2015, when first elected, And some of those things either just haven't been fulfilled or just have no longer, no longer are the priorities that we once thought they might have been. Would you mind telling people how they can keep up to date with your work? I am certainly a fan when you post something on LinkedIn. It's one of the first things that pops up on my algorithm because I'm so interested in your work. But how can people keep up? Okay, that's cool. So the algorithm is working, at least on that social media platform.

So they can find me, I guess, first and foremost, on my own website. at Michaelgeist.ca. That's where they can find links to my regular podcast, Lobbytes, which is focused on the digital policy related stuff,

as well as regular blogging and other sorts of activities. They can find me on Twitter or I suppose X at M Geist at M-G-E-I-S-T, but then they could also find me on LinkedIn or Blue Sky or Mastodon.

They're there. Oh, and also on substack. So I've got a substack that also includes both my regular podcast and my posts. Michael, you're one of my favorite voices. I do find that this realm that we're in, the podcasting, the posting world, it leads people down more outrageous, more bold, more clickbait, more going down that path in order to gain an audience in order to garner something.

And it's a challenge. I totally get it for so many people that you're going to do something. You want to have that audience. That's a tough thing that you want to chase. But I've always found that you're reasonable, you're thoughtful, you give both. perspectives. You try and be middle grounded on these issues and you try and call things out where they need to be called out, but also show the respect of where the motivation is coming from for some of these ideas. And I think that's so important when we see journalism facing different types of challenges and traditional media facing different types of challenges. When you're willing to do this independently, when you're willing to share your thoughts and help guide these conversations in a thoughtful and constructive way, that's what we need more of. So I'm a giant fan of your work. And it's always an honor to sit down with you. All right, thanks. I'm blushing here. Thank you. Thank you for those really kind words. And thank you for providing a forum like this. You know, so often things are quick and there's not an opportunity to really get into a real discussion, a serious discussion on a range of issues that are correlated or related to one another. And this has been a good conversation. It's been a really good conversation. And I think you're really using this platform in an effective fashion. I appreciate it. Hopefully we get to chat again soon. Thank you again for all your.

work. Thanks for having me.