Stursberg responds

Re: Zuckerberg’s self- serving push for regulation, Jerry Dias, Nov. 26

Let me correct a few errors in Jerry Dias’ response to the op-ed that I wrote for the Globe and Mail with Kevin Chan.

First, I resent being called a “lackey” of Facebook. I have not now, nor have I ever had, a financial or institutional relationship to Facebook.

Second, we are not asking that Facebook be “relieved of its self regulation of hate speech and fake news.” Rather, we argue that Ottawa should define what constitutes acceptable speech on the internet and then insist that Facebook and all other platforms enforce those rules. Surely we don’t want private companies to decide what can and cannot be said in our country.

Third, when it comes to supporting the news, Mr. Dias does not seem to understand how federal tax credits work. They are not deductions against taxes payable; they are direct subsidies to the labour costs associated with producing news. They are the simplest and most effective way of supporting the industry. They would provide superior assistance to his members than anything else that has been proposed to date.

Fourth, we never argued that Facebook or any other platforms should enjoy “safe harbour from antitrust.” To the contrary, our argument is that everybody should be subject to all Canadian laws of general application. This would, of course, include The Competition Act.

Finally, the overall purpose of the op- ed was to encourage the federal government to discharge its responsibilities and come forward with a comprehensive plan to regulate the social media platforms. We are simply asking the government to do its job. Surely Unifor would also agree with that.

Richard Stursberg, Toronto