We won’t save democracy by cannibalizing the internet
Countless commentators are declaring our honeymoon with Silicon Valley officially over. From Russian meddling to deepfakes, fake news and beyond, there’s growing consensus that the internet is broken, and lawmakers must fix it.
In particular, there’s increasing concern that online platforms, such as Facebook, aren’t doing enough to curb harassment and disinformation online. In response, many players are rushing to fill the policy vacuum — particularly as the government reviews the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Acts, which will shape how Canadian internet users and companies create and communicate online.
This month, the Public Policy Forum published a new report, Democracy Divided, in which a number of sweeping proposals were floated to address what the authors call “online news threats to democracy.”
The report’s authors have direct access to cabinet during last week’s retreat. Given the Trudeau government’s persistent concerns about online misinformation and hate speech, it’s important they understand how one of the report’s key proposals would fundamentally change the internet.
Democracy Divided treats online platforms as the 21st century equivalent of traditional media outlets — such as TV broadcasters and news publishers — and wants to regulate them in the same way, by requiring that internet companies be “legally liable for content appearing in their domains.”
It’s tempting to compare platforms to media companies. After all, social media sites have large audiences; they don’t fit neatly into the category of “common carriersm,” such as phone companies, which must treat all calls the same; and sites like Twitter and Facebook are always curating the content a specific user sees through algorithms, so the idea of a “neutral” platform is a myth.
But this does not make these companies equivalent to traditional media. Newspapers hire professional editors whose role it is to vet every piece of content they publish: every headline, oped and article.
Currently, online platforms are not legally liable for actions their users take This is what gives us the freedom to create and share things without having to ask for permission first.
To minimize liability, platforms would, at minimum, proactively remove anything potentially contentious and, at worst, shut down users’ ability to post content entirely — dismantling thriving online discussions.
A “more of the same” approach is not what’s needed: new technologies require new ways of thinking. Experts and governments elsewhere are already looking to other areas of the law to create new ways of governing platforms that balance the public’s right to share, with legitimate concerns about the spread of fake news and harmful content.
Disinformation and online harassment are real problems that urgently need solutions. But less freedom to share, create and discuss is not the answer.
Instead, the Trudeau government must put democracy squarely into focus and look for solutions that actually create higher information quality — not ones that force a 21st century technology into a 20th century box.