internet

Rights in the digital age

Taylor Owen, one of Canada’s leading experts on digital media ethics, is the featured speaker at this year’s Simces & Rabkin Family Dialogue on Human Rights event Nov. 9. (photo from cigionline.org)

On Nov. 9, the Simces & Rabkin Family Dialogue on Human Rights, in partnership with the Canadian Museum for Human Rights, hosts the online program Is Facebook a Threat to Democracy? A Conversation About Rights in the Digital Age.

Platforms like Facebook, which collect and share huge amounts of information, are being accused of putting profit above democracy and the public good. Can government regulation protect us and our children from online harm and misinformation – or is “Big Tech” ungovernable? How can Canadians balance freedom of expression and protection from harm on social media?

These questions and many others will be discussed by Taylor Owen in conversation with Jessica Johnson.

Owen is the Beaverbrook Chair in Media, Ethics and Communications, the founding director of the Centre for Media, Technology and Democracy, and an associate professor in the Max Bell School of Public Policy at McGill University. He is the host of the Centre for International Governance Innovation’s Big Tech podcast, and is also a senior fellow of CIGI. His work focuses on the intersection of media, technology and public policy.

Johnson is editor-in-chief at The Walrus magazine. A former editor at the Globe & Mail and National Post newspapers, she is an award-winning journalist who has contributed essays, features and criticism to a wide range of North American publications. She was the co-creator, with Maclean’s journalist Anne Kingston, of #MeToo and the Media, an inaugural course in the University of Toronto’s Book and Media Studies program.

The Simces & Rabkin Family Dialogue on Human Rights will be on Zoom on Nov. 9 from noon to 1:30 p.m. PST. It will include an audience Q&A session opportunity. Register to attend the event via humanrights.ca/is-facebook-a-threat-to-democracy. Once registered, you will receive a confirmation email and, later, a reminder for the event.

– Courtesy Simces & Rabkin Family Dialogue on Human Rights

Taming online world

Two bills recently introduced by the federal government are aimed at reducing online hate and putting some controls on the anarchic world of online commentary. Some, like Jewish community organizations, have been calling for stronger rules to deal with rampant online vitriol. Others, like civil liberties groups, balk at any incursions into unfettered expression. It might not matter anyway.

Bill C-36 is intended to crack down on online hate, something Jewish community advocates and many others have been supporting since a similar section of the Canadian Human Rights Act was repealed in 2013 over concerns around free expression. Groups like the Canadian Civil Liberties Association have expressed apprehensions over the new bill, as they had over the repealed section.

The bill would make it an offence to make statements on the internet that are “likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.” It would target commentary that is “motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or any other similar factor.”

The bill defines hate as “the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than dislike or disdain,” and is not merely language that “discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends.”

A different piece of legislation, Bill C-10, is also aimed at online content. In this case, the government would require platforms, such as social media and video streaming sites, to enforce guidelines that extend Canadian content rules, which have long governed radio and TV, to the internet. Again, critics say this is an infringement on the freedom of expression.

Both bills attempt to walk a line between free speech and the government’s attempts to encourage particular outcomes. They are likely to please some and they are likely to offend many. Both are probably founded on the best intentions, but, as critics have pointed out, Canada already has hate-speech laws that apply online and off.

Given the chaotic efforts of social media companies themselves to enforce guidelines for conduct and to curtail hate speech, it is difficult to imagine how legislation would provide a clearer guide to online etiquette. More worrying is the possible chaos that human rights tribunals and courts might have thrust upon them if Canadians begin reporting thousands or millions of problematic online statements.

We should be wary of heavy-handedness not only because the proposed laws hand a lot of arbitrary decision-making power to government or judicial overseers, but also because it is unwise to bury hateful ideas. The best way to confront hate and extremism is to shine a light on it, not to force it onto emerging platforms created specifically to give shelter to the most extreme people and ideas.

However, this all might be moot because Parliament has recessed for the summer. If, as many speculate, a federal election is called before Parliament resumes, these pieces of legislation would die. If the Liberals were to be reelected, they could reintroduce the bills. Conservatives have charged that the two proposed laws are “virtue signaling,” as much about campaign fodder as substantive change. The NDP and Bloc voted in favour of Bill C-10, with the NDP asserting that the “modernization of the law is necessary for [the] cultural ecosystem.”

Whatever the fate of these two bills, the fight against hate (online and off) will continue. We have long contended that the most powerful response to hateful words is more words – words that heal and educate. The online world is a jungle of facts and fictions, wonder and woe, insights and insanity. It is, perhaps, like the larger world, only condensed onto a small screen that amplifies the most fringe and sensational voices. Criminalizing those voices may or may not bring the result most of us seek, which is a kinder world. That said, contesting the worst of the online world is a Sisyphean task that we cannot abandon.

The medium is the message, said Marshall McLuhan, who died long before ordinary people heard the word “internet.” The anonymity and unruliness of the internet has no doubt helped to create a toxicity in our culture. But, while we should take seriously dangerous ideas online, we should remember that these are symptoms of strains in society and not solely products of the technology. Addressing online hate demands returning to first things and addressing all forms of hatred and division in our society. Fixing the online dialogue demands changing minds – and that has been the challenge since long before the advent of the internet.

Evaluating info online

Dr. Noah Alexander was the keynote speaker at the Jewish Seniors Alliance Spring Forum on March 21. (photo from medicalmentorcommunity.com)

Can I Trust That? Evaluating Health Information Online was the topic of the Jewish Seniors Alliance Spring Forum, held virtually on Sunday, March 21.

Gyda Chud, co-president of JSA, welcomed about 100 people to the afternoon event. She reminded attendees of the four foundational elements of JSA: outreach, education, advocacy and peer support. She then turned the mic over to Tamara Frankel, a member of the program committee, to introduce the guest speaker, Dr. Noah Alexander.

Alexander is a practising emergency physician at Vancouver General Hospital. Although he usually works on the front line, he also works to empower patients. He does this through his role as the associate director of digital health literacy at the InterCultural Online Health Network. This organization helps members of many different communities understand and manage their chronic health conditions.

Alexander began his talk by stating that his goal was to provide a systemic approach to health education. He highlighted many elements, beginning with the question, How do you know who to trust in this information age?

When using a search engine (he likes to use Google Chrome), use key words or short sentences to find information. When looking at the search results, consider whose website it is, their credibility and the value of the content. Credibility and content are key to the whole process. For example, who wrote the article or blog, and are they known and respected? How old is the entry? Is it relevant to the question you’re asking? Is it peer-reviewed or is the writer or organization accredited? Check the site’s URL: for example, .com entities are usually commercial and profit-based, whereas URLs ending in .org, .gov and .edu are not-for-profit.

Check both the credentials of the authors and whether they are being paid and, if so, by whom. If the entry has advertisements, there is likely to be a bias involved, Alexander warned. He said people should not trust a Wikipedia entry for important information, as anyone can add their own comments to the post. Rather, use a credible health website such as the BC Centre for Disease Control, HealthLink BC, Vancouver Coastal Health, or any other government agency.

If an article’s page contains links to other websites, there could be a conflict in that they may be selling merchandise. Red flags should be raised when cures are being offered and sold online, said Alexander. Do not trust simple, non-medically proven solutions, or advice contained in group chats. Make sure that there is a privacy policy.

Alexander then presented an interactive quiz based on his presentation, after which Chud thanked him for clarifying the elements involved in seeking accurate health information online. She also summarized the questions attendees posted in the chat and Alexander answered a number of them.

The answer to the question posed about health information online – “Can I Trust That?” – is yes … if you follow Alexander’s suggestions.

Shanie Levin is program coordinator for Jewish Seniors Alliance and on the editorial board of Senior Line magazine.

Trump’s golden idol status

When Moses went up Mount Sinai, the Israelites grew restless and constructed a golden calf to worship. Every Jew and everyone with any theological literacy knows what happened next. So it came to pass that, last weekend at the annual convention known as the Conservative Political Action Conference in the United States, a giant golden statue of Donald Trump was wheeled around, drawing adulation and selfies. With an apparent absence of irony, the defeated president was transformed into a literal golden idol.

CPAC has been an annual shindig for Christian and other religious conservatives, libertarians, right-leaning economic thinkers and a big tent of the country’s centre-right. As evidenced by last weekend’s iteration, it is now, like so much of that country’s political establishment, in thrall to Donald J. Trump.

This is the latest in an avalanche of evidence that, despite losing the election, Trump maintains a stranglehold on the Republican party and much of the country. The literal idolatry he inspires deserves fresh consideration. It is the inevitable end-point (we hope) of a trend that was predictable.

It is easy – and not wrong – to view the perpetrators of the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol as domestic terrorists who threatened the very foundation of American democracy. But these people view themselves – or, at least, some do, based on interviews after the incident – as saviours of democracy. They (or, at least, many of them) genuinely believe that the election of Joe Biden was a result of a rigged process; that millions of votes were stolen or some other jiggery-pokery ensured that the true voice of the people was thwarted.

They believe this because they have been told, repeatedly and as recently as last Sunday at CPAC, by Trump, the man they believe won the election, that the process was rigged, that American democracy has already collapsed and that the election was stolen. Thus, we observe people attempting to steal a free and fair election carrying signs demanding, “Stop the steal.”

Certainly, some recognize that the election was fair but hop on a bandwagon arguing otherwise simply because they dislike the outcome. But there are many who are absolutely convinced that corruption and trickery unjustly deprived Trump of a second term. More alarmingly, a subset apparently believes in an entirely alternate reality, in which Trump is still president, operating the “legitimate” government from his Mar-a-Lago retreat or, even more fancifully, that a series of events is yet to unfold in which the election will be proven wrong and Trump will triumphantly return to the White House.

Listening to the comments of some Americans on cable TV or in online sources is chilling. It is hard to decide whether the scarier position is the one that winks at the truth, as many Republican members of Congress do, claiming disingenuously that they merely want to investigate to make sure the election process was fair, or the one that is rooted in thin air, asserting, despite all evidence and scores of court decisions, that Trump was cheated.

There is much talk of the political polarization that the United States and other countries are experiencing, a result in part of a refraction of the media universe. We are now all capable of consuming a diet of news and information that completely reinforces our prejudices. Combined with a charismatic (to many, anyway) leader who repeats lies endlessly while stoking a narrative of grievances, this refraction has led not to differences of opinion but to incongruities about the very facts of history and current events. To use a condescending and clichéd construction, the people who are convinced Trump won are themselves victims of their leaders’ lies.

This is not to let either side entirely off the hook in this time of division. Much has been made of perceived snobbery that dismisses or diminishes the intelligence or goodwill of Trump supporters. Terms like “wokeness,” which suggest one side has awakened to incontrovertible truth while the rest of the world is mired in somnambulant ignorance, do not leave much room for constructive dialogue. The certainties of the left are visible online and on cable news as well, if for now at least founded more sturdily on a foundation of reality.

There is much talk of healing the divided society that Biden has inherited. Even this elicits disagreement, however, with some demanding accountability for the egregious oversteps of the Trump era before moving on to making nice.

This challenge runs deeper than politics. The United States may be an urgent example but all societies must confront the divisions created by the diffusion of information and contested ideas of “truth” in the internet era. This is a challenge for educators, for elected officials, for thinkers and activists and, significantly and problematically in a free society, for media.

A society requires some shared understanding of reality. When we are literally arguing over the definition of truth, when terms like “alternative facts” are uttered without a smirk, we have a problem. To say nothing of a chunk of the population who reject science, including denial around whether a virus that has killed more than 500,000 Americans actually exists. This is a desperately urgent, possibly existential, challenge for democratic societies. The first step may, as in other cases of human behaviour, be acknowledging we have a problem.

Trump exploited, and continues to exploit, a situation in which it is possible to convince large swaths of people that up is down and black is white. But, while he makes excellent use of the ambiguity of our time, he is a product of it. Whether Trump remains an influential figure or not, we have inherited a world where others like him will emerge from a miasma of mistruth unless we find some common foundations of fact.

Trying to protect cyberspace

As the use of the internet has grown, so has the need to protect data stored online, as well as prevent an organization’s website or social media platforms from being hacked. Since COVID-19 has hit, that need has increased manifold, as businesses, communal agencies, schools and synagogues have moved most of their activities online.

Cybersecurity, and security in general, is an area on which the Jewish Federation of Greater Vancouver has focused attention and resources for years. In 2015, it formed a security advisory committee, headed on a volunteer basis by Vancouver lawyer Bernard Pinsky.

photo - Bernard Pinsky, head of Jewish Federation of Greater Vancouver’s security advisory committee — Bernard Pinsky, head of Jewish Federation of Greater Vancouver’s security advisory committee. *(photo from Jewish Federation)*

Pinsky, who was born and raised in Winnipeg, has been involved in the local Jewish community in various ways since he and his wife, Daniella Givon, an Israeli, moved here in 1981.

“Since the first war in Lebanon, I got involved in the Jewish community in a very big way … because I was concerned that the Jewish community in Vancouver was way too reluctant to get involved and raise their head and fight anti-Israel sentiment, both in Vancouver and across Canada,” said Pinsky.

Pinsky has volunteered with and supported many charitable organizations, both in the Jewish and general communities, and his efforts were recognized with a Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal in 2012.

Over three years ago, the Jewish Community Centre of Greater Vancouver was one of almost 150 North American Jewish institutions that received a bomb threat. All of these threats ended up being traced to an Israeli teen and no one was hurt, but the potential harm raised concerns higher than they’d been in the past.

“In 2015, the Jewish Federation of Greater Vancouver decided we need to start a security committee, which was focused on physical security,” said Pinsky. “They asked me to be the committee chair.

“We started a physical security committee, which would train some volunteers, send people to events and help some of the synagogues train their people in security – not to carry weapons or actually try to take down terrorists, but to be extra eyes and ears before police are necessary … and to know how to defuse situations, if possible.”

The idea was to work with an overarching communal view and pool resources, rather than having each organization have to take on their own security initiatives. Jewish Federation annual campaign funds have since helped with security-related equipment, policies and programs. In 2017, Daniel Heydenrich was hired by Federation as director of security and he has coordinated efforts, trained volunteers and staff, worked with community members and law enforcement, as well as helped procure federal government Security Infrastructure Program grants.

About a year ago, when cyber-attacks on companies and institutions worldwide started involving ransom demands after systems were hacked, it became obvious that, in addition to physical security, cybersecurity was also an issue that needed to be addressed. And, in 2019, a cybersecurity and information protection subcommittee was created.

“We spent the first few months determining what our mandates were, who we were going to be helping, how we’d help, and how much would be as volunteer work and how much would be referring people out,” said Pinsky. “Then, COVID-19 hit. Very quickly after, we started making all of these decisions. With COVID-19, everybody had to be working from home, all of a sudden … people weren’t going to work in the office. So, the fact that you had office cybersecurity protocols … from home, this could be completely different – your own personal computer could be hacked.

“We realized that what we really needed to do was to offer to go into organizations and help them determine how well-protected they were. One committee volunteer decided to create an assessment tool, where we’d go through a series of questions with the organization and could tell them how weak or strong they were in different areas of cybersecurity and information protection.”

After making that assessment, the committee would then provide a list of recommendations to bridge any security gaps.

The mandate of the subcommittee, wrote Pinsky in Federation chief executive officer Ezra Shanken’s Sept. 25 Shabbat message, “is to recommend and communicate to Jewish community agencies information about specific cyberthreats and guidance that is published by recognized authoritative sources regarding cybersecurity (e.g., best practices, assessment tools, educational/training materials and policies/procedures); to provide training sessions; and to help Jewish community agencies work together to procure and implement cybersecurity services from commercial providers, where available. A key aspect of the subcommittee’s work is to help our partner agencies understand their level of exposure to cybercrime and to make recommendations on how to reduce the risk.”

So far, the cybersecurity experts on the committee have conducted six or seven assessments. Not wanting these volunteers to be overtaxed in the long run, Pinsky said, “We’re starting to train some additional people now. Hopefully, we’ll have some people qualified to do [assessments] within a month or so.”

Rebeca Kuropatwa is a Winnipeg freelance writer.

Helping people help

Help Each Other Today’s Ilya Goldman, left, and Carlos Taylhardat. (photo from Help Each Other Today)

Ilya Goldman and Carlos Taylhardat have created Help Each Other Today, a messaging platform that connects people who need help with those who want to help.

Goldman, a computer programmer and software engineer, was born in the former Soviet Union and made his way to Israel in 1990. He and his family moved to Vancouver in 1994.

“Eventually, I started my own marketing company (internet-exposure.com) in 2001,” said Goldman. “Recently, because of COVID-19, business did slow down, basically because not as many clients are working right now – a lot of my clients were local businesses.”

In light of the new situation, one of Goldman’s clients, Carlos Taylhardat of artofheadshots.com, started creating coronaSOS.com. While putting the site together, Taylhardat contacted Goldman and Goldman saw in it the potential to help many more people. So, together, they created helpeachothertoday.com.

“I wanted to move beyond just helping people during the coronavirus,” said Goldman. “I wanted to make it available for people when they need help, even after the pandemic is over. Also, I wanted to automate how people are being matched.”

People wanting help and people offering help first need to sign up for to the service, which they can do at no cost. Then, they can post an offer of or request for help that falls within the site’s categories of Delivery, Financial Support, Peer Emotional Support, or Any.

When posting, people need to submit a location, as the platform matches helpers and people needing help based on location, with people able to access posts in their area.

“Helpers will see help requests in their area and can decide if they want to help that particular person,” said Goldman. “Once they decide to help, they essentially offer this help, and they can chat on the website and arrange how.”

Taylhardat and Goldman have been volunteering their time and resources to help people during the pandemic. They considered incorporating ads into the platform, but decided not to, as they felt it would distract from the core concept of the website.

While no one monitors conversations, if ever an abuse of the system comes up, Goldman will step in and block users as needed. So far, no abuse has been reported.

Requests have ranged from a need for groceries or diapers to help with the cost of a wheelchair or in finding public housing.

image - Note of thanks to Help Each Other Today — A note of thanks to Help Each Other Today.

“Unfortunately, not all help requests can be answered,” said Goldman. “And, unfortunately, not every place has helpers available to help with every request. That’s why we’re trying to get more attention to the website, so all people who need help can register there … and, also, so people who can help can be there for those in need.”

Right now, help and helper posts are only shared within a city, but Goldman is working on a system that will let users choose a post radius.

“Currently, I think we’re helping in 1,091 cities around the world,” he said. “As we move further, we probably will be doing it one country at a time – starting with the U.S. and Canada, and then expanding it further.”

A recent Help Each Other Today media release noted, “The COVID-19 pandemic has made huge changes in all our lives and, often, those who were most vulnerable at the onset were also disproportionally affected by the virus – both by the disease itself and by its huge economic impact. On the other hand, this crisis also shows the great willingness of people to help each other, as many people donate their time and money to help those in need.”

“Social distancing is not social indifference,” Goldman told the Independent. “So, spread the word, post it on your social media, and help more people help each other.”

For more information, visit helpeachothertoday.com.

Rebeca Kuropatwa is a Winnipeg freelance writer.

Constructing age-tech maps

Keren Etkin (photo by Pazit Oz)

Keren Etkin, a 32-year-old Israeli master’s student, has been working on what she calls the Age Tech Market Map. This small but full link library is a place for older adults to find the latest news about technology.

“I am a gerontologist by training and tech enthusiast by nature,” said Etkin, who was born and raised in Israel and currently lives in Tel Aviv. “Gerontology is the study of various aspects of aging and gerontologists are either scientists researching the various aspects of aging or professionals working in the aging business.”

While working on her undergraduate degree in the sciences, Etkin began volunteering with Holocaust survivors, which she found a stark contrast to working in the lab. After graduating, she continued further along this path, finding work in the nonprofit sector. But she soon realized that, without a relevant degree, it would be challenging for her to advance her career, which is why she is currently studying for a master’s in gerontology.

“I work at the intersection of tech and aging, which is a very interesting place to be right now, professionally,” said Etkin. “I also run The Gerontechnologist [thegerontechnologist.com], which allows me to explore different aspects of the age-tech ecosystem and talk to many interesting people who do interesting and impactful work.”

Etkin’s first job in the industry was with Intuition Robotics, where she helped develop and build ElliQ, a friendly sidekick for older adults.

“ElliQ was the first big project I was involved with,” said Etkin. “I was recruited to Intuition Robotics in 2016 as the company’s first employee and only gerontologist. That was a very hands-on project that I feel fortunate to have had the opportunity to work on for several years.

“I know there are other gerontologists out there working in or with start-ups or investing in start-ups, and I think that’s a good thing – to have professionals from the aging industry come work inside the tech industry and help build tech solutions for the aging population.”

ElliQ makes it easier to connect to family, friends and the digital world, and helps users stay active and engaged. With it, people can read and respond to messages, share pictures, get reminders about medications, respond to questions and even receive surprise suggestions throughout the day.

“I think incorporating technology into any field of work is beneficial, specifically when it comes to the aging industry,” said Etkin. “There’s a lot to gain, since it’s very labour intensive. Some of the work currently being done by humans could be done by machines – like paperwork and some physical tasks – hence, freeing up humans to perform tasks that require uniquely human skills, such as empathy, critical thinking and creative problem-solving.”

The biggest hurdle Etkin sees in the industry is that most tech companies do not view older adults as potential users. In her opinion, they are missing out on a huge sector.

“Studies show that older adults are adopting technology more and more,” she said. “Internet use is rising steadily and many older adults own smartphones. From my experience, older adults are willing to use technology as long as they find that it’s useful and brings value to their lives.”

According to Etkin’s website, “The global spending power of people 60+ years old is expected to reach $20 trillion by 2020. Americans over 50 are expected to spend $84 billion annually on tech products by 2030.

“Contrary to common belief, most older adults hold a positive perception of technology. Many are eager to learn new tech skills as long as they find them useful. However, most of them admit they require some assistance in setting up and learning to use new devices.

“A report by the Pew Research Center found that 42% of older adults in the U.S. own smartphones and that 67% use the internet. Baby boomers spend an average of 27 hours a week online.”

Etkin began working on The Gerontechnologist in 2017. At the time, she was just looking for was a snapshot of the ecosystem and she was curious to learn what other people in the field were working on.

“After spending many, many hours doing online research, I came to the conclusion that there was no age-tech market map out there and so I decided to create it myself,” said Etkin. “After publishing it online, I got a lot of feedback and realized that other people were also interested in this. I also realized that I enjoyed creating content about age tech, and it sort of took off from there. The blog today serves anyone who’s interested in tech for older adults.”

This past summer, Etkin started posting podcasts and video series on thegerontechnologist.com, and she plans to keep working on projects that she is passionate about and that she thinks bring value to the world.

Etkin is working on the 2020 Age Tech Market Map. In the process, she will evaluate more than 2,000 service providers and choose the top 200 for the map.

“I would love to hear about Canadian start-ups developing tech for older adults,” said Etkin. “You can reach me through the contact page on my website or message me on LinkedIn and Twitter.”

Rebeca Kuropatwa is a Winnipeg freelance writer.

Time to face ourselves

Actor and comedian Sacha Baron Cohen delivered the keynote address last month at an Anti-Defamation League conference. His words quickly went viral because he pinpointed fears and challenges shared by millions about the power of social media. He hit many nails on the head.

“Democracy, which depends on shared truths, is in retreat, and autocracy, which depends on shared lies, is on the march,” he said. “Hate crimes are surging, as are murderous attacks on religious and ethnic minorities. All this hate and violence is being facilitated by a handful of internet companies that amount to the greatest propaganda machine in history.”

He was referring to social media like Facebook and Twitter and platforms like YouTube and Google, whose algorithms, he said, “deliberately amplify the type of content that keeps users engaged – stories that appeal to our baser instincts and that trigger outrage and fear.”

Had Facebook existed in the 1930s, he went on, it would have run 30-second ads for Hitler’s “solution” to the “Jewish problem.”

Baron Cohen acknowledged that social media companies have taken some steps to reduce hate and conspiracies on their platforms, “but these steps have been mostly superficial.”

“These are the richest companies in the world, and they have the best engineers in the world,” he said. “They could fix these problems if they wanted to.” The companies could do more to police the messages being circulated on their sites, he suggested.

He’s correct about the problems. But the first problem with his solution is that he is asking a couple of corporations to judge billions of interactions, making them not only powerful media conglomerates, which they already are, but also the world’s most prolific censors and arbiters of expression. Of course, by abdication, they are already erring on the side of hate speech, but is the alternative preferable? If we think Facebook chief executive officer Mark Zuckerberg has too much power now, do we really want to make him the planet’s censor-in-chief?

Yes, the platforms benefit from and, therefore, promote, the most extreme viewpoints. But, even if we could, would forcing those voices off the platforms make the world a safer place? There are already countless alternative spaces for people whose extremism has been pushed off the mainstream sites. Just because we can’t hear them doesn’t mean they’ve gone away.

Marshall McLuhan, the Canadian philosopher who declared “the medium is the message” died four years before Zuckerberg was born. He could have predicted that social media would change the way we interact and communicate. But has it fundamentally changed who we are? Or has it merely allowed our true selves fuller voice? Perhaps a little of both. Facebook, Twitter and the others are not agnostic forces; they influence us as we engage with them. But, in the end, they are mere computer platforms, human-created applications that have taken on outsized force in our lives. And all the input is human-created. Since the dawn of the industrial age, we have imagined our own inventions taking over and controling us, from Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein to 2001: A Space Odyssey’s Hal to Zuckerberg’s Facebook.

In all these cases, fictional or not, the truth is that the power remains in human hands. This is no less true today. We could, if the political will existed, shut down these platforms or apply restraints along the lines Baron Cohen suggests. But this would be to miss the larger point.

We live in a world filled with too much bigotry, chauvinism, hatred and violence. This is the problem. Dr. Martin Luther King said: “Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.” And there are plenty of sites on social media that advance mutual understanding and love over hate. Are their messages as likely to go viral? Probably not. But that, ultimately, is determined by billions of individual human choices. A small but illuminating counterrevolution seems to be happening right now with a renaissance of the ideas of Mister (Fred) Rogers and his message of simple kindness. While much of the world seems alight in hatred and intolerance, a countermovement has always existed to advance love and inclusiveness. This needs to be nurtured in any and every way possible.

If Facebook were a country, its “population” would be larger than China’s. Bad example when we are discussing issues of free speech and the accountability of the powerful, perhaps, but illuminating – because an entity of that size and impact should be accountable. As a corporate body, it has few fetters other than governmental controls, which are problematic themselves. Concerned citizens (and platform users) should demand of these companies the safeguards we expect. We are the consumers, after all, and we should not ignore that power.

But neither should we abstain from taking responsibility ourselves. Social media influences us, yes. But, to an exponentially greater degree, it is merely a reflection of who we are. It is less distorted than the funhouse mirror we like to imagine it being. If what we see when we look at social media is a depiction of the world we find repugnant, it is not so much social media that needs to change, it is us.

Scammer awareness

On Nov. 3, the Jewish Seniors Alliance, with COSCO Health and Wellness Institute, presents Privacy and Security in the Internet Age. The JSA annual fall symposium has a different topic of particular relevance to seniors every year and this year’s topic aims to educate seniors on using the internet safely and securely.

There are numerous phone and internet scams that target seniors and separate them from their hard-earned dollars. The scammers often impersonate long-lost relatives or offer excellent returns on investment. One must also be wary of viruses and people trying to overtake emails.

COSCO provides workshops led by trained facilitators to seniors groups throughout British Columbia. In the case of the symposium, the presenter will be Floyd Smith. He will focus on personal privacy and the benefits and risks of technology. He will also explore mobile technology versus a desktop environment and provide an overview of home device systems.

The JSA motto is “Seniors Stronger Together,” while that of COSCO is “Seniors Helping Seniors.” Combining forces, it is hoped that the two organizations can both help and give strength to seniors in the Jewish community.

The symposium workshop takes place Nov. 3 at the Peretz Centre, with registration at 1:30 p.m. and the event beginning 2 p.m,; the cost to attend is $5. Refreshments will be served. Because of construction in the area, access to the Peretz’s underground parking is through the lane from 49th Avenue, the first alley west of Cambie Street. A parking attendant will be at the entrance of the lane at 49th Avenue to direct traffic to the lot, to which there is no access from 45th Avenue.

For more information or to register, contact the JSA office at 604-732-1555 or [email protected].

Focus on online hate

Kasari Govender, British Columbia’s human rights commissioner. (photo from Wosk Centre)

Hate in British Columbia, in Canada and globally is on the rise. In 2017, there were 255 police-reported hate crimes in British Columbia, an increase of 55% from just two years earlier. In 2018, Metro Vancouver had the highest rate of hate crimes reported to police in any of Canada’s three largest metropolitan areas, most based on the victim’s ethnicity or religion, with a smaller but significant number based on sexual orientation.

These alarming statistics, and others, provided a framework and urgency for an event Sept. 12 at Simon Fraser University’s Morris J. Wosk Centre for Dialogue in downtown Vancouver. The event, titled From Hate to Hope in a Digital Age, is envisioned as the inaugural annual Simces and Rabkin Family Dialogue on Human Rights.

Contextualizing the discussion, Shauna Sylvester, executive director of the Wosk Centre for Dialogue, cited the results of a report undertaken by her organization. These indicate that one in three Canadians believes Canadian-born citizens should have greater say in government than those born outside the country. One-quarter of Canadians say we have too many protections for minorities and one in four also believes we have too many protections for religious freedom.

Keynote speaker at the forum was Kasari Govender, in just her second week on the job as British Columbia’s human rights commissioner. She is the first to hold this role in the province since that office was closed in 2002.

“In my view, there is a strong connection between hateful speech and hateful violence, both on an individual and a systemic level,” she said, citing racist manifestoes sometimes posted online by perpetrators in advance of a mass killing. She said it is necessary to trace the path from speech to violence.

A common theme of recent mass murderers is anti-immigration sentiment, sometimes emphasizing the “purity of the nation, whether that nation is Canada, New Zealand, the U.S. or another,” she said, adding that many of the attacks around the world that have been linked to white nationalism correspond to discourse in mainstream political debates over immigration and public policy.

The worst antisemitic mass murder in United States history, the attack on Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh in 2018, happened while U.S. President Donald Trump and others were promoting fears of the so-called “migrant caravan” coming from Central America. Part of that conversation, Govender said, “was somehow blaming the Jews for this migrant caravan, drawing a connection in the public discourse, and then there was the shooting.”

Boris Johnson, now prime minister of the United Kingdom, compared women who wear burqas to bank robbers, which led, Govender said, to an increase in acts of hate against Muslim women in the United Kingdom.

Online hate is a particular product of technologies that have emerged in recent decades, she said. “The anonymity, reach and immediacy afforded by the internet escalates the problem beyond what we’ve seen before,” she said. “The internet is a very effective tool for fomenting hate from belief to action, from hateful words to violent actions.”

While forcing social media platforms to police hate speech might be criticized as an infringement of free expression, she said, the opposite is true. Regulating platforms to shut down violent rhetoric actually improves access to freedom of expression for many, as people of colour, women and others are being silenced online by racism and misogyny, she said.

Participants at the Wosk Centre offered a wide range of perspectives.

Evan Balgord, executive director of the Canadian Anti-Hate Network, outlined the approach his agency takes in confronting online hatred.

“Legal [action] would be our last recourse against a hate group or a hate propagandist,” he noted, saying that their first response is to “try to hold somebody socially accountable.” That means, if the person is anonymous, exposing them. If the person is not anonymous, this might mean bringing their posts to the attention of their employers, family and friends.

“Those might provide checks on their behaviour,” he said, adding, “We’re not really trying to reform people here, we’re just trying to stop the spread of hate propaganda.”

For those who do not respond to social accountability, Balgord said, Canada’s laws are insufficient. Application of the Criminal Code’s section that deals with the wilful promotion of hate and distribution of hate propaganda is unwieldy.

“We did use to have a better recourse,” he said. “It was Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. It would allow a private individual to essentially file a complaint, which would be vetted by the Canadian Human Rights Commission and, if found credible, would go to the tribunal. They could order a cease-and-desist order against that individual and up to a $5,000 fine.” If, at that point, the individual failed to comply, they would be in contravention of a court order and could face jail.

“We really want to see something like Section 13 come back,” he said.

Several speakers agreed that social media platforms need to do more policing of hate speech. Some countries have laws that force social media companies to address hate material on their platforms within certain timeframes or face serious fines.

Social media platforms, Balgord said, may already be in contravention of Canada’s existing laws against discrimination in the provision of a commercial service, because women, people of colour, LGBTQ+ people and other members of targeted groups are exposed to abuse, harassment and death threats that could drive them off the platform.

Rabbi Dr. Laura Duhan-Kaplan, director of inter-religious studies at the Vancouver School of Theology, noted that government budgets are limited but that education can take place everywhere – and that everyone is an educator. Early childhood is crucial, she said.

“What children do together, the songs they sing, the books they read, all of that becomes the building blocks of the way they think,” she said. “All of us who interact with children have an opportunity to begin to teach values of respecting difference, helping others, nonviolence.… One week of summer camp with friends on a theme of diversity, peace, public service – these are experiences that stay with teens and we really, really bring them into young adulthood in a different way.”

A speaker from the audience, a counselor and educator, noted that inequality, including economic inequality and poverty, makes people susceptible to fear and that can become a foundation for hate.

Another speaker contended that there is, in effect, no such thing as race.

“I think it’s very problematic to use the term race as if it’s a reality,” he said. “There is such a thing as racism but not really race. If you look at the majority of anthropologists, geneticists and so on, they say that we have much, much more in common with each other [than differences].… Even using terms like black and white to refer to people reinforces racism. We never call people yellow anymore, because that’s racist. We need to come up with a new language that doesn’t emphasize unreal differences and that are respectful to everybody.”

Lorene Oikawa, president of the National Association of Japanese Canadians, contended that sharing one another’s stories is an effective means to education.

“People really don’t know the stories,” she said. “For sure, there are some people who do, but they don’t know the [extent of the] harm that was done and the intergenerational trauma.”

She applied lessons of the past to current events. “In 2019, Japanese-Americans, Japanese-Canadians are horrified by some of the hateful rhetoric we’re hearing [that] could be lifted from 1942,” she said. “If people knew their history, more people would be going, ‘Wait a minute. What we did back in 1942 was wrong. Why are we saying the same things about people from [other] countries, putting people in camps, separating families, separating children from their families?’ All that stuff happened to Japanese-Americans, Japanese-Canadians and it’s being repeated today.”

She added: “We feel it’s our duty that what happened to our community must never happen to another community again.”

Clint Curle, senior advisor to the president of the Canadian Museum for Human Rights, agreed that education is pivotal.

“Is there a lesson, an experience, we can give children especially that will make them resistant to hate speech and resistant to hateful violence?” asked Curle. He compared hatred to a communicable disease.

“If this was polio, what would we do? If this was polio, we would do what we did, which is vaccinate. The way vaccinations work is you get children and you give them just enough of something close to the disease [so] that they develop an internal resistance to it, so, when they encounter the disease, there is something within them that says, no. So, when they encounter hate, they’ll know.”

With more than 1.5 million visitors to the museum since it opened five years ago, Curle said what resonates, especially with young people, is exactly what Oikawa suggested.

“The thing that seems to work best is storytelling across social boundaries,” he said.

Zena Simces, a health and social service policy consultant and a former Pacific region chair of the now-defunct Canadian Jewish Congress, conceived of the annual event with her husband, Dr. Simon Rabkin.

“We felt that we wanted to enhance an understanding of human rights in our community and to create an opportunity for dialogue on human rights issues,” Simces said. “Our aim is to select current and relevant themes each year and to invite experts and community leaders and community members to advance and generate positive action.”

Rabkin, a cardiologist, professor of medicine at the University of British Columbia and president of the medical staff at Vancouver General Hospital, added: “The dialogue this evening … is seeking to enhance our understanding and knowledge of how this increase in hate and its consequences can be addressed from legal, social media and community perspectives.”