Nuanced. - 98. Michael Geist: The Importance of Freedom of Expression Online

Episode Date: March 15, 2023

During their conversation, Aaron asked Michael about his experiences in law school, journey into teaching, and his podcast Law Bytes. Michael shared his passion for internet, e-commerce, and tech law, which led to a discussion about the potential impacts of two proposed Canadian legislation bills, Bill C-11 the Online Streaming Act and Bill C-18 The Online News Act. Dr. Michael Geist is a law professor at the University of Ottawa where he holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law and is a member of the Centre for Law, Technology and Society. He has obtained a Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.) degree from Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto, Master of Laws (LL.M.) degrees from Cambridge University in the UK and Columbia Law School in New York, and a Doctorate in Law (J.S.D.) from Columbia Law School. Dr. Geist serves on many boards, including Ingenium, Internet Archive Canada, and the EFF Advisory Board. He was appointed to the Order of Ontario in 2018 and has received numerous awards for his work including the Canadian Journalists for Freedom of Expression Vox Libera Award in 2018, the Kroeger Award for Policy Leadership and the Public Knowledge IP3 Award in 2010, the Les Fowlie Award for Intellectual Freedom from the Ontario Library Association in 2009, the EFF’s Pioneer Award in 2008, and Canarie’s IWAY Public Leadership Award for his contribution to the development of the Internet in Canada. More information can be obtained at http://www.michaelgeist.ca .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

Michael, it is such a pleasure to sit down with you today. Would you mind giving listeners a brief introduction of yourself? Yeah, sure. I'd be happy to. And thanks, first of all, for the invitation. I'm really happy to have the chance to come and appear. 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. I've had that for a long time. And essentially, my area of focus is really the intersection. between law technology and policy. And so that has met focusing on privacy issues, on internet regulation issues, on intellectual property, copyright-related issues. And given that I'm in the nation's capital, given I focus that I'm based at the University of Ottawa, there's a fairly strong policy to mention often appearing before parliamentary committees or becoming publicly engaged on these issues. And I do that more than I suppose the average academic active on

Twitter. I have a podcast, a regular blog. So make active use of that to try to ensure that my research and work reaches a broader audience. I think we're really lucky that you do that because these are very complicated issues and have someone like yourself bringing on guests to break topics down, explain to average Canadians, kind of what's going on and how to think about these issues I think is really important because there's information in an article or a blog post that you don't get when you're kind of hearing from the players that are actually operating within parliament that are trying to make their best decision possible. Yeah, thanks.

And that's some of my favorite kind of feedback when people say that they like that kind of work that I try to make accessible to a broader audience. And I agree, I think these issues are critically important. They often don't get the same kind of attention, unsurprisingly, that some of the other issues do in the media. And so trying to find a place where people can learn more, whether that's spending half an hour listening on a podcast or reading up through the book, blog series or just following along Twitter or Mastodon or Substack, I guess.

There's lots of different avenues for that. I think is an important part of what my job is all about. Absolutely. Can you walk us through some of your educational journey? You've been to some of the most prestigious schools in North America and in the world when we're talking about Cambridge. Can you talk about your education? Sure.

I'd be happy, too. I've been incredibly fortunate, I have to say. And so I'm from Toronto originally and went to Western University for a couple of years before going to law school at Osgood Hall, law school in Toronto. And rather than going directly to practice, as you suggest, I ended up studying in a number of other venues. I spent a year studying doing graduate legal work at Kobe University in Japan. I did a first master's at Cambridge University in England. Came back for a time to work at a law firm as part of my article thing and then actually talked. for a year at Dalhousie University in Halifax before going to Columbia,

University in New York, where I got a second master's in law and also got my doctorate there as well. Wow. What did that education do for you? Did it change how you think about things? Was it, where did you find the most growth in yourself? That's a really interesting question. You know, certainly it's that education is what put me on the career path that I ended up on.

You know, I would say, I went to law. school without necessarily knowing where it would lead. And like many of my classmates, I thought it probably would lead to one of the law firms in Toronto. And it did for a time. It's why I summered at a firm a couple of times, as I say, ultimately ended up articling. But as I had the opportunity to study in some of these places around the world, meet students from around the world. I both found that the academic life was something that held a lot of interest and that that kind of global perspective on things in particular was something that I really was excited about. And, you know, frankly, the flexibility that comes with this kind of job. I really feel

like it's a privileged position to be able to do the research that you want to do, to say what you want to say without being beholden to anyone, without, you know, being on someone's payroll and being restricted in what you can say. I've appeared dozens and dozens of times before House of Commons committees. And every time I start by saying, you know, I'm remember the University of Ottawa in the Center for Law Technology and Society, but I appear today in a personal capacity representing only my own views. And that's a privilege, that's truly a privilege to be able to do that. There are a lot of people that peer committees that basically have to tow the company line. And it's nice to be able to speak out in a range of different

venues to try to educate and know that it's truly what I genuinely believe based on what I think is in the public interest and based on the work and research that I've done. That's really fascinating because a lot of your study, a lot of your understanding is on this idea of freedom of expression, communication, how we have dialogues. There's bills going through on social media communication. You're on social media. There's bills going through about how to communicate through podcasts and what the future of that might look like. And again, you're involved in that, but from an independent capacity. So you understand on a deeper level the value that some of our rights and when we're talking about how to navigate them,

what that best practice might look like. Yeah, I think that's right. You know, we're at a time where we've begun to appreciate some of the potential harms and risks that come from social media and the Internet. You know, I think in the early days, it was this embrace and excitement about how new it was and all the pretty amazing opportunities that come out of it. And, you know, we've seen the people shift to the opposite side of the spectrum with a lot of concerns.

And I think there are real concerns about our privacy, about the power. that some of these companies have and the potential for any competitive behavior. Those are real concerns that we ought to be addressing. But I often also feel that we can't lose sight of just how incredible these new technologies are. And at the very top of the list of what they provide is a venue for people to be able to engage, to say what they think, in a way that simply wasn't possible, even frankly, when I was growing up.

And it's not that long ago that a letter to the editor, an op-ed, or some venue to try to make your voice heard was its own privilege, that it was hard sometimes to obtain that and that people had their views that they might share around the dinner table or within their communities, but the ability to be heard by a broader audience to have a bigger impact, to share either their thoughts or their culture or their creativity was something that, you know,

if you didn't own the pipes or if you didn't own the venues or the platforms, you just didn't have the ability to do that. the fact that we now live in an era where we have all of those things for better and admittedly sometimes for worse, I think it's incredibly exciting. And I worry sometimes that in the rush to say we need to find solutions to deal with some of these harms, and I do think we need to deal with these harms, that we sometimes forget about or overlook some of the real benefits. And we risk losing some of those benefits if we're not careful. I couldn't agree more. When I think about podcasts specifically, you can think of them as

just in addition to your phone. But I do think it's a Gutenberg level advancement in technology because we're now being able to reach people in a way maybe people weren't educated to read. I know within my indigenous community, some people aren't able to read at the high level, and that's no fault of their own, but podcasts give away for them to be able to learn and access valuable information in an accessible way. And I find that really inspirational with you because graduating from Peter A. Allard School of Law, there's a lot of prestige put on me just for graduating from there, but my goal is always to make what I learned more accessible to people, to make them understand some of the processes and systems that exist. And that's

really what you've dedicated yourself to is taking a profession that's sometimes a little bit too prestigious and making it more accessible to everyday people and showing just the realities of the system we operate within. Yeah, I know. I think we're thinking a like in that regard. And I agree it's interesting. You could comment about the reach that a podcast can have I was, I feel sometimes I was late to the podcast game. I, you know, I wrote a column first in the Globe and Mail, then in Toronto Star, and then in the Globe and mail again for many years. And I've been actively blogging really for about 25 years now, so for a long time.

And I often thought of those as the venues. And I'm smiling because I sometimes will run into younger students that come in through the law school. And they primarily, you know, be through the podcast. So I've had quite a lot of episodes by now, had the opportunity to, to chat with, Privacy Commissioners and politicians and experts from across Canada around the world. I think it's been fantastic. It's something that I really enjoyed doing. And it's found an audience, which is great.

But it's for me sometimes a bit funny to think of how we do see these changes take place. And I think that there is a need to continue to be open to these different forms of communication. People learn in different ways. People access information in different ways. And if we're looking to get a more engaged citizenry that are more aware, of these policy issues, of these political issues of understanding, you know, what's taking place, what rules may govern some of their own activities. We've got to reach them in their own event. We can't say, hey, I've got a blog. I'll come and read it. I think we've got to find different ways

to reach them. And the podcast has clearly become a really important way for a lot of people. Yeah. And I think it changes maybe a lot of our preconceived notions about who our audience is going to be. Because I'm sure at the beginning, you start writing articles, the primary reader is going to be lawyers, legal experts, people who are really focused on this issue, but the podcast really opens it up in a way where people aren't typing into Google like law updates on Bill C11 or whatever it is, they're able to access you and learn about a topic. And they might be truckers driving across Canada. They can be commuting to work. They can be from a more diverse background than maybe previous mediums. I think that's right. I absolutely think that's true. I think the audience is different. One of the things that certainly gratifying and that I didn't necessarily expect or know when I got started creating the podcast several years ago was that I don't follow my stats a ton, but every once in a while I'll take a look. And what was, I think, exciting to me was that when I took a look back, let's say, at last year's numbers, every single podcast, has been over 150 of them now, had a sizable audience

that year. So of course, you get more with newer episodes, but people were still using podcasts that I would have had an interview with a privacy commissioner, let's say, or a politician or a different expert, you know, several years ago. And that information lives on. And it's great that people still find it several years later. Brilliant. One of the areas that I think I'm curious to your thoughts on, because you received an award in this regard, freedom of expression has become a huge talking point for both sides. And you actually received the order of Ontario in 2018 in regards to freedom of expression for journalists and general freedom of expression. Can you talk a little bit about that? And then can we lead this into your thoughts on where freedom of expression is today?

Sure. So I'd be happy to do that. And, you know, that was a truly memorable night and what an amazing award. I've been really fortunate. I've received a number of awards for my advocacy from various internet groups, the EFF, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and others. But certainly receiving both, I received a war from Canadian Association of Journalists on the journalism side and then also the Order of Ontario from, I guess, the government of Ontario or the lieutenant governor. And that was, it was truly memorable to see people so accomplished in so many different ways. There's this element of saying, you know, what am I doing in this room with these people that have accomplished so much. But I was gratified certainly for the recognition and particularly

for the fact that the government had recognized, or the lieutenant government had recognized the importance of freedom of expression, the attempt to try to play a role in that and in the development of our digital policies. These are exceptionally important issues. They, as I say, don't always get the attention that I think they should. It was nice at least for a brief moment that they did there. Yeah. So now this is an issue where people seem to not know how they feel about whether or not their freedom of expressions being infringed. 2018 is maybe the beginning of concerns in regards to whether or not freedom of expressions being infringed upon, what direction are we going, what direction is the government going

in regards to regulating communication? So have you noticed an uptick and concerns since perhaps that 2018 date? And are those concerns warranted? Yeah, well, listen, I think that there are increasing concerns and that really does time with about that, 2017, 2018, where we started to see, I think, a shift, certainly in government's perspective, and obviously some in the public perspective as well, about the benefits and the risks that come from these new technologies from the online environment. And so it was a pretty rosy view, I think, up until that point, we've started to see a shift in that regard. And,

you know, some of it, I think, is very real. When we talk about freedom of expression and the concerns that can arise out of those freedoms. We're talking both about, you know, the ability for people to speak online, sometimes facing various kinds of harms or threats online or other kinds of attacks, which can have a chilling effect without doubt. And I think that there is a need to ensure that it is a safe environment for people to feel free to speak. You know, if they don't feel safe and have that ability to speak,

they are being chilled as well. At the same time, I think, you know, we've seen the, risk of overreach coming from the government? We've seen the government, you know, really sort of launch headlong into a series of pieces of legislation that I believe it views as important for whatever purposes, for cultural purposes, let's say in a bill known as Bill C-11, in journalism and news in the case of another bill, Bill C-18, we're likely to see yet a third bill dealing with online safety and online harms. And yet I think it's essential to recognize that with each of these bills, if you don't strike the balance,

right. You run the risk of chilling speech because of the legislation. You run one real risks of people, ability to express themselves or their ability to be heard as a result of this kind of legislation. And I think that sometimes the government has, at least in the last couple of years, been too quick to look at the political calculus of this, thinking it's a political winner or not, rather than looking at all the policy implications and trying to come up with the legislation that does, I think, a better job of balancing some of these competing objectives. Interesting. When we talk about freedom of expression, there's sort of two areas. And one is the idea of being able to communicate freely without fear of self-censorship. And I think when we're

talking about that, we're talking more of a society level, whether or not a famous person says something that's really unpopular, and then they get kind of called out for that. And then people don't want to hear from them anymore. The other is government censorship, where, the government is prohibiting or putting rules around or guiding companies on how to think about, is there one that's more in your mind a concern or one that's more prominent that's kind of steering things? Yeah. So it's an interesting question.

I mean, I would start by saying that I'm not sure that it's just those two. Of course. For example, you know, the chilling effect that someone who is targeted, let's say by doxing, which refers to instances where their personal information is. is made available, their contact information where they are or whether they are subject to an enormous amount of hate or other kinds of responses online that, that frankly can be very traumatic and leave them feeling that they can't speak because to venture into this space makes it an unsafe space. And I think that can have a chilling effect. And I think that is

some of the motivation for why we see some of these legislative initiatives. Where I've been focused the last couple of years with the broadcasting legislation that we have. Now, the news legislation that we have, the online harms and safety legislation is, though, more and more on the government's response to this. And while I think there is unquestionably a role for government here, I, you know, I'm not someone that does of the view that this is a no law land and we ought not to be regulating either the space or the tech companies. I think there is unquestionably a rule for doing that. I do have real concerns that in the rush to regulating that we are sweeping in or the government is sweeping in certain kinds of provisions that will have a negative effect on people's

basic expression. That's true. I think we can get into it if you like, but I think that's true in the context of Bill C-11. That's the broadcasting bill that has brought within it the potential for the CRTC to have certain powers related to user content, user-generated content, which to my mind is at the end of the day basic expression. That's true with respect to C-18. That's the online news bill that would create a system of mandated payments for links or for indexing content, which I see as being central to the free flow of information online and I think creates real risks once you say that there's required payments for linking or for indexing information by large companies such as Google. And that is likely, I think, to be true as well for the online

harms or online safety legislation that if the government moves ahead with at least how they were initially thinking about it might result, for example, in takedown of content without effective due process. And there may well be, you know, so-called unlawful speech that violates the criminal code. I think we need to ensure those laws can be applied effectively online. But I think at the same time we have to be careful once we move into what's often referred to as the awful but lawful kind of content. And at a minimum, be careful about what kind of due process we have around that kind of speech. That is also really, really interesting. For listeners who might not have a deep understanding, there's often an overlap between United States politics and Canadian

politics. And in regards to our freedom of expression, there's limits in a way that the United States is a little bit different. Would you mind explaining that for people who may have preconceived notions about how our freedom of expression operates? Right. Well, I mean, listen, at the end of the day, we're both vibrant democracies that both have their challenges. This is pretty obvious from time to time. The U.S., I think people typically would say, puts a stronger, you know, to the

sense to which it's always going to be some amount of a balancing act. There are competing objectives, as you referred to a few moments ago. And I think the general perception would be that the U.S.'s place on the balance would skew more towards freedom of expression so that they, in other words, are willing to tolerate more speech, even speech that may cause harms because they believe that freedom of expression is so strong. And we see that come up with very high standards. For example, there's a case right now involving Fox News and Dominion voting. They make voting machines. and Fox News is being sued for defamation, for knowingly providing false information about those voting machines in the aftermath of the 2020 U.S. election.

It's a very high threshold that they have to meet to prove defamation. And part of the reason for that is that in the United States, they try to provide very strong protections for the media to be able to speak out. In Canada, we still have strong protections for freedom of expression, but we at the same time have taken steps to say certain kinds of speech, racist, sufficient harm that we're not going to protect it, or at a minimum, we are going to say that it can veer into the area of being unlawful. That's true for something like hate speech. It's true for terrorism-type speech. It involves child endangerment type cases, child pornography.

This is, of course, a classic example that we see in countries around the world. So, you know, we move a little bit more on the spectrum saying we are comfortable with some regulation of speech that we don't, I guess, subscribe to the view that the only way to counter bad speech, is with good speech, that bad speech can have real harms. And if it goes too far that there may be a rule to try to run counter to that, I think it's important to recognize it's still pretty high threshold in Canada. You don't certainly see a lot of prosecutions on that sort of thing. And what I, in my view, anyway, becomes important is essentially the due process that's associated with this. So that, you know, I personally am comfortable. I'm the grandson

of Holocaust survivors. I'm comfortable with saying that there is certain kinds of hate that can and should be unlawful. The question when you're dealing with some of that speech is, you know, who gets to decide? What safeguards do you have for it? How do you ensure that what you're dealing with really does meet those standards? And, you know, those are all hard issues. We have course that try to deal with them. As we move into the online environment, there has been some desire to, you know, put more and more of that responsibility on the large platforms. And so long as there's an appropriate due process, I think you can make the case that they need to act responsibly. Some of the proposals, though, may not fully account for the

need to do some of those things. To use a metaphor of like building a house, that first brick you're pretty happy with in Canada. You think we've struck a pretty good balance considering you don't think we need to. If there was a vote to switch over to the U.S. model, you don't think we would need to do that. Is that? I, on that, I think that there are, you know, there's a range of things the U.S. does really well on internet and digital policy general. And then there are other areas where I'm happier with the approach that we see in Canada. Yeah, I'm comfortable with rules that say that there is certain kinds of speech that can run afoul of the law. I mean, you know, I think that there are real risks.

If you take the position that it's that there are really all virtually no limits in that regard, then I think you are accepting that some people can can be the sub-target of some very significant harm. There, as I was saying, their speech themselves can be a subject to a real chilling effect and they can sustain, you know, some very real harms. This is, these are not imagined harms. I think they can be very real. So, so it's, you know, a U.S. approach that skews more towards, you know, deep reluctance to essentially label anything as unlawful.

From my perspective, I think we do a better job of saying, no, you know, there are some instances where there is some real harm. That said, you know, admittedly, once you open the door to say, okay, there are certain things that we are, that we are uncomfortable with, of course, you start seeing efforts to expand that list. And that's when you start getting into, I think, some potential real challenges, both with respect to the due process around, you know, decision-making, around who gets to decide, and then even the prospect of expanding that list, which is something that does come up from time to time. This leads really not. nicely into Bill C-11. Can you talk about your journey? You've been following this from the

beginning. How have you felt about the process? It's listening to your podcast. It sounds like things have moved very quickly through Parliament. How do you feel about the process that this bill has gone through? Yeah, it's an interesting question. I've been living with this for a couple years now, actually, with its predecessor, Bill C-10, and then now Bill C-11. And as we discussed this bill C-11 has now passed both the House and has passed the Senate, but the Senate made some significant changes to the bill. And so we're waiting to see how the government responds to that. And then in turn, how the Senate responds to the government's response. So it feels as if we're nearing in the end, but not quite there yet. How do I feel about the process

that we've just seen? Well, in some ways, I'm tempted to say, you know, let's wait and let's see how the government responds, because I feel like the Senate did a pretty good job of at least addressing one of the core concerns around freedom of expression. I think there are still some real problems with the bill, but, you know, the politics is always going to be about some amount of compromise. And I think many would say, listen, if we can at least get this issue around user content and that expression issue, right, some of the other issues, which may have their own sets of concerns, but we can we can hope that the CRTC deals more effectively with it. You know, It has been, though, it's been at times a difficult journey to use your term, in part because

the government started with a piece of legislation, both this bill and even the bill before, that they said was primarily about getting large streaming services, services like Netflix or Disney to contribute into the Canadian system. We could have a good debate about that. My view is those companies do contribute to the Canadian system. They're in fact, some of the biggest investors in Canada. And we have rules, though, that don't always recognize those contributions as meeting a standard of CanCon, not because of the product, the product and its production and its production is

about as Canadian as you can get. But the fact that it's owned by someone other than a Canadian is what renders it non-Canadian for CanConn purposes. Now, had the government stuck with that in this legislation, then I think we could have a really interesting debate around what constitutes Canadian content, how we ensure that that gets created. What's a Canadian story?

how do we ensure that those get created and disseminated? But it took a step with the prior bill and that has remained in place with this bill to incorporate within it user content and providing the broadcast regulator, the CRTC, with some powers around that kind of content. And, you know, when they first, at first it was not in the bill. It was excluded. They then made a change back in C-10 to bring it in. That's what really, I think, sparked a lot of the concern.

The bill died on the order paper. We then had an election. And when they brought it back, the current heritage minister Pablo Rodriguez said, oh, you know what, I fixed it. I listened to the concerns and I fixed it. And then when we looked at the actual language of the bill, it became clear they hadn't fixed it, that the concerns around the ability for the CRTC to exert some regulatory power over user content remained in place. It doesn't mean the CRTC gets to tell people what they say in their YouTube videos are on their podcasts. But they do have some powers with respect to something known as discoverability, which we would give

them the power to effectively push for either the prioritization or deprioritization of certain content. And I think people look at that and say, understandably, that they have real concerns, real concerns that their content might not qualify and therefore be deprioritized, or if you're a professional creator or a digital first creator that has done well globally, concern that having a regulator in the government begin to effectively push certain outcomes in an algorithm could have a real negative impact on your ability to find your audiences and make a living and generate revenue. And so we've seen these concerns raised by many groups. We've had digital first groups. We've had indigenous groups have raised these issues with the bill.

And, you know, you started this question with my very long answer, you know, to reflect a little bit on that journey. And I think if there's been anything, I think the most discouraging part, to be candid about it has been that so many have really, I think, put their heart into this to say, you know, they've looked at it, they've studied it, they've tried to understand the implications, they're deeply worried about it, and the response that has gotten has been to be left disrespected in the case of some indigenous creators that met with Pablo Rodriguez's office. In other instances, it's simply to be ignored or dismissed. And that's incredibly discouraging. It's hard to get people involved in a policy and political process, and I think they deserve better.

That's really fascinating because you can see the value that people can contribute and then kind of the review process that it goes through and you get to see whether or not your ideas are being valued based on sort of the response. And I'm interested to understand sort of your feelings about what the next steps are. It sounds like this has gone to the Senate. The Senate is given some information you had a senator on who kind of discussed their perspective on this and put forward their ideas. Do you feel like this is going in the right direction? If you had to figure out where the balance is going to be, do you have hope? Well, you always got to have some amount of hope. Otherwise, I would have quit this a

long time ago. You know, I was telling someone over the weekend that I go into these issues expecting to lose pretty much all of them. So you got to have some amount of hope. Otherwise, you wouldn't even bother. I would say on this issue, listen, we are at the end. game from a legislative perspective. And I can't say, if I'm honest, I can't say I'm that hopeful on this issue. The signals from the minister from Rodriguez has been that they are likely to reject the amendments that were made at the Senate. And you mentioned the conversation I had on my podcast with Senator Paula Simons, who spent 30 years as a journalist, Senator appointed by Justin Trudeau from Alberta, I think exceptionally thoughtful, someone who takes, take these

issues really seriously and, you know, crafted together with another senator from Quebec, Senator Maville Deshain, who used to was for many years at the CBC, I think a real effort to try to address, to find compromise legislation that address the concerns of digital creators and at the same time ensured that the concerns that the government had about making large platforms like a YouTube contribute would still be in effect. I think that compromise This is a good one. I don't think it's perfect, but I think it's a good one. And if the government still says no, I think that will be both an incredibly discouraging message to the Senate, which conducted an exhaustive, extensive study into this bill, far more detailed and engaging that we saw from the House of Commons, devoid of much of the kind of politics that we often see in the House. It was really a legitimate attempt to try to unpack what this legislation was doing and to make it better. I think it's a slap in the face for that. body, I think it's a terrible message to the hundreds or thousands of creators who have spoken out to the government to ask that their concerns be addressed. You know, lots of different groups

came forward to say their concerns should be addressed, to see a government willing to reject the concerns of users. And they may well say, hey, we'll get it right in a policy direction where we'll tell the CRTC to get it right. That's not good enough. It has to, the language in the legislation has to get it right. And so if the government, moves in this way, and there's some fear that they will. I think it just, it gets, each time it breeds cynicism, it gets harder and harder to get people engaged to convince them that this is something worth investing their time with. Because if at the end of the day, the government will simply ignore those voices and just listen to the handful of voices that have the most

amount of power or that are viewed as the most politically expedient, you know, in case of Pablo Rodriguez, some of the Quebec-based lobby group. that's just an awful message. And it's one that I think discourages long-term active participation being in a process at the very time that the Internet really does provide us with the ability to actually engage more and more Canadians and become more and more active participants

in our policy processes. That can be said enough that becoming an informed person in a democracy is really, really important. And something I don't think I hear people saying enough is you read the newspaper, you keep up on podcasts, you stay informed, not because it directly impacts you every day, but because the general thrust of the country is you need to be involved in that process. And when people do get involved, particularly ironically, content

creators who are used to sharing their voice are not being heard. There's an incredible irony to the fact that the government processes say, we want more buy-in, we want to see more turnout at elections, we want to hear your voice, we want to represent your interests, and then you represent your interests, you share your ideas, and it goes on deaf ears. That's right. You know, listen, I think you've got to walk the walk and talk to talk. And it's not enough to say that you're interested in consultations. You have to have consultations that are more than just consultation theater, that are something that are real and that you're willing to act on them. And I think at times, we've seen things that feel a bit more like theater than actual real attempts to hear what Canadians think and then take what people think and put it into the policy process. It's the Bel C-11 had, I think, just a terrible set of consultations at the Heritage Committee. which was highly politicized, I thought we had government MPs that frankly didn't want to hear from criticism. The goal was to communicate that this was great and to direct their questions almost always towards those that would speak well of the bill. you know, if we've lost that ability to critically engage on legislation, even the government's

own legislation for fear, I don't even know what the fear is, for fear that somehow you look weaker or that you might improve the bill or that it might change somewhat, then I'm not sure what this process is all about. It feels that many times these are cakes that are pre-baked by the time they're put forward this legislation. And the calls to participate, whether at a community or in a consultation, are really just more efforts to sort of say, yeah, we asked people what they thought, as opposed to any real attempt to engage in dialogue and improving legislation. And at the end of the day, it's just going to breed a generation of people that are entirely disinterested and cynical about politics.

Can you grab out your tinfoil hat? Why do you think it's happening like this? What do you think is driving the government not to take action on these ideas? You know, I wish I knew. You know, I think we're in a highly politically charged environment, of course. And so, you know, all political parties look at these issues through a political lens. I think, though, that this government, and it pains me to say this is a government I supported when it was first elected. And was excited, quite frankly, to see the change in government at that time. And I feel like they've often betrayed a lot of the very principles they talked about. They talked. about greater transparency and accountability, I think we've seen less and less of that over time. And maybe that's, maybe that's all governments. Maybe maybe it's just the case that the longer you remain in power, but this just invariably happens. I don't know, but I know I think there are a lot of people that hope for better if I'm candid about it. And in this case,

I don't have a good answer. All I know is that it becomes harder and harder to to educate people and then include this part of that sort of encouragement to, hey, you should. should get involved and ensure your voice is heard because when it becomes increasingly clear that the government isn't really interested in those voices. They're just interested in the appearance of being interested in those voices. It becomes very tough for people to take part and feel good about having taken part. As a host of a podcast, I get to interview people, ask them questions, but then people don't really know what I took away from it or walked away. I'm interested in your thoughts on your conversation with Senator Paula Simon.

what was that experience? Like, what were some of the standout things in your mind that you took away from that conversation? Well, that's interesting. Well, I've actually, Sarah Simon is very kind. She's come on my podcast a couple times now. She came on several years ago to talk about this. The government was moving towards an online news bill

and then most recently on C-11. I must admit I'm a bit of a fan boy because I just, I think that, I think the Senate, for many years, let's put it this way, I think for many years, the Senate just, you know, it was hard to identify what exactly its purpose was, that we had a lot of senators there that weren't all that visible, that were appointed, that didn't necessarily engage, I can recall times where I appeared before Senate committees. And, you know, I think people were earnest, but it felt, it felt also a bit like theater,

if I'm honest. And I think we've seen a new generation of senators exemplified by people like Senator assignments who have, who take this job incredibly seriously, are just so thoughtful in terms of their thinking on this legislation and frankly on other pieces of legislation. And, you know, quite honestly, provide the model for, for all parliamentarians on how I, I wish they engaged when it came to some of these issues. There's far too much in the House and sometimes in the Senate of, you know, this is my party. I'm going to speak on party lines if I speak at all. And Senator Simons was appointed by Justin Trudeau, but, you know, has been steadfast in remaining

independent. And, you know, that conversation for me really highlighted the value that a senator can provide into the process where they adhere to those principles of independence, of being inquisitive when it comes to the policy process to be willing to question the government and question witnesses and ultimately try to act in the public interest with whatever sorts of amendments they come up with. I couldn't agree more. I really felt like she delivered the steel man argument for the Senate being the sober second thought. I felt like that was very clear from her messaging. The only area that I had some pushback on was it did sound like she was much more critical of Pierre Polyev and some of the things he was saying.

And my only, it's not even a counterpoint. My only point would be that when you're trying to get people to look into an issue, you can't say it's a very complicated issue that you should go look into and educate yourself on. You have to say some things that are going to get people upset enough to go look it up on their phone. And so him being dishonest or sending disinformation is in part to catalyze some action on the other side. And I feel like that's in part because we're not having a clearly transparent conversation. The government, as we've kind of talked about, isn't delivering on some of those promises. So the only way you catalyze action, in my opinion, is to say some things that maybe aren't, again, accurate, but that catalyze action. Yeah.

You know, I think, as much as there's an attempt to remain independent, a senator and the Senate is still a political body, and so their and politics are going to come up from time to time. And I think that in particular, people like Senator Simons, who were quite. quite visible on some of these issues, did sustain a fair number of attacks online. I have to tell you that, you know, as much as I admire some of the things that you said, there have been times where I posted on Twitter short clips because it's easy to cut clips from Senate hearings and post them online so people can see what they say. Senator Simons wears a mask when she's in those public venues. And the kind of hatred she gets for making that choice frankly stuns me.

And, you know, I think she does an incredibly admirable job. And at the same time, you know, I can understand why at times she takes a look at some of the, as what she's faced. And you can't help, you can't help but internalize some of that and say, you know what, some of it is just plain wrong. There are, as much as there are concerns with this bill, there were, and our conspiracy theories with it. When I appeared before the Senate, I made it clear. I said, listen, this isn't about censorship of what you can say, but this does have implications for the ability to be heard. And both are important, but we need to be clear about what this bill really means. And, you know, so she raised those issues and I think, you know, so I can understand where she's coming from in that regard.

Yeah. I just, I guess I have a lot of sympathy for people who are caught up in these types of things. I try and again take people and steal man their position. And when people have concerns about how things are going, when they have conspiracy theories as to how this came about, there are nuggets that they're pulling on that are accurate. And so to me, I view them as like they're taking steps to become an informed citizen. And they're not there yet because they have a lot of information that isn't accurate,

but to maybe write them off or suggest that they're completely on the wrong track, they just need some of those puzzle pieces swapped out in order to move in the right direction. from my perspective. Yeah, and I can understand that. And I don't, I didn't get the sense Senator Simons was writing them off, but she did, she clearly did try to make a very clear delineation between criticism of, of, of the bill in terms of what's really in the bill, which he thinks is legitimate, and criticism at times of elements of the bill that simply don't exist that are at times fabrications.

And I think we've seen some of that. I think she's, she's right in that regard. art. And so an effort to try to ensure that we have, as you say, a good policy debate that is based on the actual policy themselves. And, you know, on this bill, on Bill C-18, on what's forthcoming, I suspect, with online harms, there is plenty to be concerned about without the need to fabricate it anything. Agreed. Yes. I don't want to strawman her and say she was upset with conspiracy theories. She was very clear in your interview with her that she's concerned with top-level people sending it into the community and getting people worked up over.

things that aren't there and she was very clear on like legitimate she went through piece by piece and I actually admired that she went through some of the subsections and areas and really broke that down and she said we've got way too into the weeds and I was like as a listener I was actually very grateful because it felt like I was being as a listener being respected that she didn't go oh people aren't like going to want to care about this enough like I appreciated her kind of diving into those more detailed this is exactly what this subsection is and I'm proposing this be removed yeah no and it's hard to know You raise a good point.

It is hard to know at what level to pitch some of these discussions from time to time. You know, the truth is you're trying to reach a broad audience. And at times, you can say stuff that you take for granted that people know what it is that you're talking about. I've had people tell me, stop using Bill C-11. Stop using Bill C-18. The people don't know the numbers. You need to talk about the legislation itself. And so it's difficult.

It's lives are busy. We're at a time when people face real challenge. it is economically and otherwise. And so in some ways, becoming actively engaged on these issues is a bit of a luxury and because so much of your time is focused on other things, understandably so. And so I agree with you. I would never be dismissive of people that, you know, are trying. But at the same time, I can understand a frustration because when people do try to educate

and at times what they get back is a lot of stuff that really doesn't necessarily advance the public policy in the way that we'd like. Agreed. Bill C-18 is another topic that's at top of mind. Can you talk, can you name the bill, and can you talk a little bit about your thoughts on it? Yeah, sure. So Bill C18 is the Online News Act. It's a piece of legislation that seeks to require Google and Facebook in particular to compensate news organizations. And we all know that news organizations have been struggling in recent years. Now, had this bill been strictly about, you know, instances when Facebook or Google, let's say because they're really the two targets, make copies of these, of news articles and run ads against them, that kind of thing. One could well understand why it would seem to be appropriate. to compensate. But that's not what this legislation says. It's legislation that actually says that any facilitating access to the news, that's linking to the news, that's putting some of the news in any index is subject to compensation. And the compensation here is enormous. We're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars. So much so we had one senator, Senator Harder, say they envision

the possibility of those two companies paying for 35 percent of the news expenditures of every news outlet in the country. That includes broadcaster, that includes television and radio broadcasters. You know, Google and Facebook have looked at this and say, basically, you've got to be kidding. This is just for links. This is not for copying. This is for linking to content that then drives traffic back to those original sources. And we've seen both of them react in ways that they say they may exit the news in Canada

altogether. They may stop linking to news in the case of Google. They may stop allowing for the sharing of news in the case of Facebook. if the legislation passes is in this current form. What do you think happens? Well, I think that we feel like we're on a collision course because the government seems to welcome

fighting with big tech on this. They've presented these companies. It's hard to be siding with big tech on these issues, but I have to say they've been presented with a choice, which is basically pay hundreds of millions of dollars for links or stop linking. And I don't think it's particularly surprising that those companies are saying we're going to expect

Bloor not linking. The government says that they're thieves when they link without compensation and their sensors when they stop linking. And so it seems to me that it's a tough position to be in, and I worry that the companies will look at this and say they're going to take the second option that the government's presented to them, which is to stop linking altogether. And I think that that really ultimately will harm our information ecosystem. Linking is at the foundation of the internet. And so I think the harm would be enormous to all of us if that's the direction the government that we head in. But we haven't seen a lot of interest from the government in compromise, at least not right now. This is a very interesting complex problem. You

interviewed Farhan Muhammad about this. I'm wondering if you could talk a little bit about that interview that you did. I interviewed him myself. I find what they're doing really innovative because I think it goes to kind of the problems we're talking about, which is how do you get a more coherent level of news because algorithms start to choose what you're interested in and then it becomes a feedback loop and it starts to become more and more confusing. It seems like this path of having Fraser Valley current within my region able to share with you the kind of top news articles and give you kind of a briefing for the day. It seems like a good step in the right direction.

What was that experience like to interview him and what are your thoughts? Yeah, it was great. Now I talked to Farhead and Jalfelg, a village media guy in the same interview. And, you know, I think we've got some amazing independent online media entrepreneurs and Canada who are finding new ways to reach audiences, who are finding new ways to report on the news, and who, for the most part, are almost entirely forgotten or dismissed by the government. In fact, we had one MP, Lisa Hepfner, liberal MP from Hamilton, who dismissed them all together that literally said, it's an online news isn't real news.

And she later apologized when she got some blowback from that. But, you know, I think it does highlight where the government's mind is down on this. I worry that this legislation feels like it is being drafted with large legacy broadcasters and media companies in mind and doesn't take sufficient account of some of the real online innovative entrepreneurs in the space. And I think they could ultimately be harmed. I think they will be harmed. If you asked where are we headed on this, if the Facebooks and Googles decide that they are

getting out of the news business, it is those. entrepreneurs that will be hurt the most. If you're post media, if you're the CBC, still can't believe CBC is part of this bill, but in any event, if you're the CBC, if you're CTV, if you're Bell Media, you already have large audiences. Yes, Google and Facebook are important, but life will move on. If you're a new startup in a local community trying to build an audience, if there's no more sharing of your news on Facebook or people can't find you on Google, it's hard to know how you exist. You mentioned the CBC. Defund CBC has been something that's trended on Twitter a few times.

I'm just curious as to your thoughts on that. What is your perspective? You kind of mentioned that CBC being a part of that bill surprises you. Could you talk a bit about that? Yeah, personally, I like the CBC, so I'm not a supporter of Defund the CBC. I particularly like the radio, the radio side of what they do. The TV feels sometimes a little less relevant, but I certainly like CBC radio. But my personal views, you know, are pretty relevant, are relevant with respect to CBC.

I think there can be a role for the public broadcaster. I do think, however, that the idea that they should be eligible for more for Google and Facebook money, let's say, if this comes to pass, is questionable. Frankly, I think it's, I think the inclusion of broadcasters more broadly, radio stations of broadcasters, raises some real concerns. They will take the lion share of the money, more than 75% according. of the money, according to the parliamentary budget officer, will go to large broadcasters, not to small newspapers and the like that where I think we think would, this would be headed. So I think in that sense, I think there's some real concerns. You know, there's some real concerns. And I just think, you know, my view of the CBC being part of this comes down to one.

I'm not convinced that they should be competing for digital ad dollars in the same way that they are with some of the private media. If anything, in a world with paywalls, there is a role for a digital CBC to ensure people do have free access to the news online. And that doesn't suggest to me you ought to be further paid. That's why we would invest in a CBC to ensure that's available. But even more, if the public broadcaster is to be relevant, surely its goal is to ensure that their content is as broadly disembarked, as possible. That's something that a Google and a Facebook do. They make sure that more and more of this is available. The idea that we would say, well, we want to ensure that you pay for that really runs counter to the objective. To me, the whole point of the public broadcaster is to make

that content more broadly available. Michael, you are a very insightful person. I always enjoy when you go along form and start breaking down your thoughts. So I really look forward to those episodes when you're able to share all of your complex thoughts on these issues. Would you mind telling people how they can connect with you? Sure. So they can find me on my own website at Michaelgeist.ca, m-ch-a-e-l-g-E-D-I-S-T dot CA. I'm on Twitter at M-G-G-E-E-G-E-E-S-T.

I have a substack. You can find me of my podcast. You can find online. It's called Lawbytes. Lots of different places to find my stuff. Go check out Lawbytes. I really enjoy your work. I think that you're a steward for keeping an informed electorate.

I think that that's a really important. role and something I don't think we hear acknowledged enough is that you're helping making sure that regular people are able to learn about these issues and stay informed and try and vote when there's opportunities to and move our society in the right direction. I really appreciate you being willing to sit down today. It's such a pleasure to be able to speak with you. Oh, that was an incredibly fun conversation. Thank you so much for having me. Tim, how did we do? That was excellent. I got everything I needed, as well as a very large amount of information about things that I was unaware of. So thank you so much. Awesome. Podcast standpoint.

We've got exactly what we need. Perfect. That's super. Great. Okay. Thank you so much. That was a really fun conversation. Enjoy the rest of you there.

I've left it recording, but if we wanted to, I find a little bit awkward of coming in and cabitzing with the highly intelligent guess but I can bring myself up next to you which I've done in the program and then we can have a thought I would love to hear your thoughts

on like what did you get out of that what did you see well three things and nothing to do with the conversation with Michael but their recurring themes with the podcast it's will Tim remember to put the climber on for Aaron

and it usually takes me to about the six minute point and I see it in and say the over your shoulder shot oh yeah so then I'll start it and I'll try to light it up with the recording so you have some sense of how long this is gone there's also a built-in drinking game of how many times will Aaron say brilliant I will say if I was drinking

I'm getting less drunk because you're saying it far less I'm doing good Yeah. And then the third recurring theme is, Erin will say, I've got this guest and I'm super excited. Of course, you know him, right? Or her. And I'm, no. I've never heard of this question. So I'm feeling less tuned into the world. But I also appreciated it today. I don't know when these two episodes are going to come out, but we recorded two episodes with two different Michaels. And they could not be more. It went from Yo, yo, yo, to To That was a That was perfect

To to To Hetty law And And politics You like how I change Pace Oh yeah

Yeah, you You match Yes That's my random thoughts And how it's going I like it. I like it. I appreciate it.