legislation

Elon Musk’s purchase of the social media behemoth Twitter, which appears probable, is raising questions about what the new management could mean to users and society at large. For Jewish tweeters and others, there are red flags.

The growth of social media of all varieties over the past 15 years has resulted in a massive change in the public dialogue. People have some ability to amplify or diminish the voices they do or do not want to hear, resulting in an unprecedented ability to self-select the information (or misinformation) to which we are exposed. The relative anonymity of the media has had additional harmful impacts, with racist, misogynistic, homophobic, antisemitic and other hateful statements being posted in volumes too massive to effectively police. The spike in antisemitic hate crimes we have seen in recent years is almost certainly a result, in part, of online antisemitism moving into the “real” world.

Since 2016, when Russian and other bad actors influenced the U.S. presidential election in favour of Donald Trump, some platforms, including Twitter, have been driven to address some of the most egregious content on their sites and abuse of the medium. Their efforts, however imperfect and inadequate, reflect an assumption that hate speech should not be accepted.

Musk’s planned purchase of Twitter (which has a number of hurdles yet to overcome) raises fears among some that his self-identification as a “free speech absolutist” may reverse the small strides Twitter has made in addressing hate speech.

If Musk, who is presumed to be the richest person on earth and who is known to be a micromanager, chooses to imprint on Twitter his vision of absolute free speech, we should expect the limited efforts to police the worst content will be diminished or eliminated.

Of course, Musk would not be the final arbiter of what is acceptable. He may be the richest person on earth and Twitter may be among the most powerful communications platforms ever known, but they are still subject to government oversight.

Among the challenges, of course, is that Twitter, like the rest of the internet, effectively knows no national boundaries. So, while the United States is lenient toward extreme speech, different countries take a different approach.

For example, Canada’s Parliament is considering two proposals to make it illegal to deny or diminish the historical facts of the Holocaust. Legislation like this – as well as existing hate crimes laws that prohibit the targeting of identifiable groups – will inevitably come up against transnational norms set by platforms like Twitter. Will social media platforms face endless legal challenges? Or will the sheer volume of offences make it impossible to challenge any but the most outrageous affronts?

Canadians have always had a different approach to free speech than our American cousins. Our Parliament, like many in Europe, recognizes limitations in the interest of national harmony. These often lead to contentious debates over where lines should be drawn. Introduce an anarchic, foreign-owned social media platform into the equation and these discussions become far more complicated.

These are difficult issues. In a perfect world, absolute free speech would be ideal, because, again in a perfect world, individuals themselves would balance their right to expression with their responsibilities as citizens of a pluralistic society. But, we do not live in a perfect world and some compulsion sadly seems necessary to prevent, say, outright incitement to murder or genocide.

Here, though, is something not difficult or complicated at all – we do not need legislation or philosophical debates around freedom in order to counter hate speech right now. In this space, over many years, we have argued that the best way to confront bad, or hateful, speech is not stifling that speech, but countering it with truth, compassion and decency. Silencing hatred (even if it were possible in the wired world) will not eliminate hatred. We are in a war of words, and more words, not fewer, should be our approach.

A magnificent case-in-point occurred in the past month.

After the student society of the University of British Columbia passed a resolution endorsing the boycott movement against Israel, Santa Ono, the president of the university, responded with a thoughtful statement condemning BDS.

Too often, destructive, hateful messages like anti-Israel boycott resolutions are met with silence, usually with the excuse that such resolutions or protests are legitimate expressions of free speech. Of course, they may well be. But this argument, which was used by UBC administrators and others in the past, misses the point. Free speech does not mean the right to have one’s opinions uncontested. As Ono’s statement makes clear, both sides have a right to have their voices heard. That is free speech.

At a time when too many campuses across North America are roiling with anti-Israel spectacles, the significance of a statement like Ono’s did not go unnoticed. In fact, the university president received a letter from another president. Isaac Herzog, the president of Israel, wrote a “Dear Santa” letter, thanking Ono for his unequivocal statement.

That Israel’s head of state would intervene to express gratitude for Ono’s statement is itself a statement of how serious the threats are from uncontested hate speech. But it also reminds us that we do not need legislation or courts to stand up – as individuals and as a community – against egregious attacks. Every person has a voice. Some use it to spread misinformation and hatred. Others use it for good.

Taylor Owen speaks at the third annual Simces and Rabkin Family Dialogue on Human Rights, Nov. 9. (screenshot)

Canada, like most of the world, is behind in addressing the issue of hate and violence-inciting content online. In attempting to confront this challenge, as the federal government will do with a new bill in this session of Parliament, it will be faced with conundrums around where individual freedom of expression ends and the right of individuals and groups to be free from hateful and threatening content begins.

The ethical riddles presented by the topic were the subject of the third annual Simces and Rabkin Family Dialogue on Human Rights, Nov. 9, in an event titled Is Facebook a Threat to Democracy? A Conversation about Rights in the Digital Age.

The annual dialogue was created by Jewish Vancouverites Zena Simces and her husband Dr. Simon Rabkin. It was presented virtually for the second year in a row, in partnership with the Canadian Museum for Human Rights.

The featured presenter was Taylor Owen, who 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 presented in conversation with Jessica Johnson, editor-in-chief of The Walrus magazine.

The advent of the internet was seen as a means to upend the control of a society’s narrative from established media, governments and other centralized powers and disperse it into the hands of anyone with access to a computer and the web. Instead, as the technology has matured, online power has been “re-concentrating” into a small number of online platforms like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, which now have more global reach and cultural power than any preexisting entity.

“Understanding them and how they work, how they function, what their incentives are, what their benefits are, what their risks are, is really important to democratic society,” said Owen.

These are platforms that make money by selling ads, so it is in their interest to keep the largest number of people on the platform for the longest time possible, all while collecting data about users’ behaviours and interests, Owen said. These demands prioritize content that is among the most divisive and extreme and, therefore, likely to draw and keep audiences engaged.

The sheer volume of posts – in every language on earth – almost defies policing, he said. For example, in response to public and governmental demands that the company address proliferating hate content and other problematic materials, Facebook has increased resources aimed at moderating what people post. However, he said, 90% of the resources dedicated to content moderation on Facebook are focused on the United States, even though 90% of Facebook users are in countries outside of the United States.

A serious problem is that limitations on speech are governed by every country differently, while social media, for the most part, knows no borders.

Canada has a long precedent of speech laws, and Parliament is set to consider a controversial new bill intended to address some of the dangers discussed in the dialogue. But, just as the issues confounded easy answers in the discussion between Owen and Johnson, attempts to codify solutions into law will undoubtedly result in fundamental disagreements over the balancing of various rights.

“Unlike in some countries, hate speech is illegal here,” said Owen. “We have a process for adjudicating and deciding what is hate speech and holding people who spread it liable.”

The United States, on the other hand, has a far more libertarian approach to free expression.

An example of a country attempting to find a middle path is the approach taken by Germany, he said, but that is likely to have unintended consequences. Germany has decreed, and Owen thinks Canada is likely to emulate, a scenario where social media companies are liable for statements that represent already illegal speech – terrorist content, content that incites violence, child exploitative content, nonconsensual sharing of images and incitement to violence.

Beyond these overtly illegal categories is a spectrum of subjectively inappropriate content. A single media platform trying to accommodate different national criteria for acceptability faces a juggling act.

“The United States, for example, prioritizes free speech,” he said. “Germany, clearly, and for understandable historical reasons, prioritizes the right to not be harmed by speech, therefore, this takedown regime. Canada kind of sits in the middle. Our Charter [of Rights and Freedoms] protects both. The concern is that by leaning into this takedown regime model, like Germany, you lead platforms down a path of over-censoring.”

If Facebook or YouTube is threatened with fines as high as, say, five percent of their global revenue if they don’t remove illegal speech within 24 hours, their incentive is to massively over-censor, he said.

Owen said this will have an effect on the bottom line of these companies, just as mandatory seatbelts in cars, legislation to prevent petrochemical companies from polluting waterways and approval regimes governing the pharmaceutical industry added costs to those sectors. Unfortunately, the nuances of free speech and the complexities of legislating it across international boundaries make this an added burden that will probably require vast resources to oversee.

“It’s not like banning smoking … where you either ban it or you allow it and you solve the problem,” said Owen. There are potentially billions of morally ambiguous statements posted online. Who is to adjudicate, even if it is feasible to referee that kind of volume?

Rabkin opened the dialogue, explaining what he and Simces envisioned with the series.

“Our aim is to enhance the understanding and create an opportunity for dialogue on critical human rights issues, with the hope of generating positive actions,” he said.

This year’s presentation, he said, lies at a crucial intersection of competing rights.

“Do we, as a society, through our government, curtail freedom of expression, recognizing that some of today’s unsubstantiated ideas may be tomorrow’s accepted concepts?” he asked. “Unregulated freedom of speech, however, may lead to the promulgation of hate towards vulnerable elements and components of our society, especially our children. Do we constrain surveillance capitalism or do we constrain the capture of our personal data for commercial purposes? Do we allow big tech platforms such as Facebook to regulate themselves and, in so doing, does this threaten our democratic societies? If or when we regulate big tech platforms, who is to do it? And what will be the criteria? And what should be the penalties for violation of the legislation?”

Speaking at the conclusion of the event, Simces acknowledged the difficulty of balancing online harms and safeguarding freedom of expression.

“The issue is, how do we mitigate harm and maximize benefits?” she asked. “While there is no silver bullet, we do need to focus on how technology platforms themselves are structured. Facebook and other platforms often put profits ahead of the safety of people and the public good.… There is a growing recognition that big tech cannot be left to monitor itself.”

The full program can be viewed at humanrights.ca/is-facebook-a-threat-to-democracy.