Facebook doesn’t rule out blocking news content if C-18 passes, docs reveal telecom opposition to online harms framework

Representatives of Twitter Inc. and Meta Platforms Inc.'s Facebook have acknowledged that the companies have serious concerns about a pair of Government legislative efforts currently under consideration in Ottawa. Asked by Conservative MP Raquel Dancho about her company's perspective on Bill C-18, also known as the Online News Act, Facebook's Canadian public policy manager Rachel Curran said that the company was still evaluating the legislation. "We didn't know the scope of it until it was tabled very recently. I will say we have some pretty serious concerns," Curran said at a Tuesday meeting on the House of Commons Security committee. "Our view is that when publishers place links to their content on our platforms, they receive significant value from doing that, and we don't actually control when, or how, or to what degree they post news material on our platforms." Asked specifically if that meant Facebook was still considering taking a similar approach as it did in Australia in the wake of similar legislation introduced there – and ban the sharing of news links on the platform – Curran said that "we're still looking at all of the options based on our evaluation of the legislation, so we're still going through that in detail." "We were not consulted on the content of it, and so we need to review it in pretty close detail before we decide what our future response will be," she told MPs. Twitter's director of public policy for the U.S. and Canada Michele Austin said that her company, too, was in the early stages of reviewing the legislation. "The thing that we're most concerned about is with regard to scope and transparency. The question is whether or not Twitter is scoped in under that bill. That is very unclear and I understand that there will be quite an extensive coming out after the bill is passed," Austin said. When it comes to the Government's efforts at combating online hate, Austin acknowledged a letter the platform had sent to Heritage Canada as part of the department's consultation on the legislation. In the September 2021 letter, obtained through Access to Information request and posted to University of Ottawa professor Michael Geist's website Thursday, the social media platform wrote that the proposed framework for the legislation "for proactive monitoring of content sacrifices freedom of expression to the creation of a government run system of surveillance of anyone who uses Twitter." "Even the most basic procedural fairness requirements you might expect from a government-run system such as notice or warning are absent from this proposal. The requirement to ‘share’ information at the request of the Crown is also deeply troubling," the company wrote, and likened the website blocking provisions of the proposal to the approach of governments in totalitarian regimes like China, North Korea, and Iran. On Tuesday when asked by Liberal MP Pam Danoff whether the comparison was responsible, Austin doubled down. "I don't think it's irresponsible to make a comparison, when we're asked by the government of Canada to give our input," she said. "Blocking internet sites is contrary to Twitter's position on the open internet." Elsewhere in the package of submissions published on Geist's website, a lawyer acting on behalf of BCE Inc., Rogers Communications Inc., Telus Corp., Shaw Communications Inc., Cogeco Inc., and Quebecor Inc. – six companies that have the vast majority of internet customers in Canada – wrote that they had "concern with the process" by which the Government sought comment on the planned online harms legislation. In the September letter, the companies also expressed concern over the issue of liability. "The fundamental function of the service that provide is the same as it has always been—providing passing connectivity service to Canadian homes and businesses.," Fasken Martineau DuMoulin lawyer Jay Kerr-Wilson wrote on behalf of the telecom companies. Referencing the investments required to deliver 5G services, Kerr-Wilson wrote that "it is essential that the modernized Canadian legal framework for addressing harmful online content does not create additional obligations or liability for carriers, which could impact internet costs and disincentivize Canadian TSPs from making the investments" in their networks. The telecom companies also wrote that they opposed the proactive monitoring of their customers' internet habits. "It would be an affront to the fundamental concept of an open internet and basic civil liberties to require TSPs to engage in this kind of proactive monitoring of Canadians' online activities and would compromise Canadians' confidence in TSPs as neutral and passive network service providers," the submission argued, adding that such monitoring would contradict the privacy policies of the carriers. The telecom companies also wrote that if they were ordered to take down content under a judicial order, they "must be legally indemnified against civil damages and other consequences in the event that complying with any legal requirement, including but not limited to a Court order, has such an effect on legitimate content." In its own submission to the consultation, the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM) said that there is “no doubt” that online hate through social media, blogs, podcasts and other websites has contributed to a rise in fear, misinformation and Islamophobia toward Canadian Muslims, however, “simply put, the legislation as it stands now could inadvertently result in one of the most significant assaults on marginalized and racialized communities in years.” The group's main concern comes from the proposal to engage CSIS and other law enforcement agencies to address terrorist content/ activities because “the track record of the Canadian government’s practices” with respect to investigating terrorism “has disproportionately securitized, criminalized, and demonized Muslim Canadians.” The NCCM argued that flagging content that is “likely” to lead to terrorist activity will falsely implicate Canadian Muslims who talk about Afghanistan, Palestine or who stand in solidarity with other diverse movements online. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) said in its submission that Canadian Heritage is outside of its expertise, arguing that attempting to legislate areas that impact anti-terrorism and criminal law would be the equivalent of having the department of Foreign Affairs regulating the broadcasting industry. “We believe a policy issue of this level of importance, and a proposal with such novel elements, must be subject to more rigorous scrutiny,” CCLA wrote. The organization's main gripe with the online harms proposal was that it deals with a “variety” of online harms rather than just unlawful content. “This amounts to significant regulation of the ways Canadians communicate,” it wrote. The group added that it fails to take into account that the five different content categories outlined by the government – terrorist content, violence, hate speech, non-consensual sharing of intimate images and child explotation content – require different policy tools to be addressed and the only thing they have in commons in the means through which they may be communicated. “The types of harms to which they give rise also vary considerably,” CCLA wrote. “As a result some of the categories of content will require greater understanding of context to assess legality, while others will be more obvious and easier to identify either using automation or manual human review.” The Sex Workers of Winnipeg Action Coalition “explicitly stated” their opposition to the proposal and noted to the government that its past discussions on online safety – mainly the Ethics Committee’s final report on the protection of privacy and reputation on platforms such as Pornhub – “denied” and “even outright ignored” the voices of sex workers. The group said that government’s proposed 24-hour time period for a website to filter out flagged content poses high risk to sex workers. They pointed to data gathered after the United States introduced its SESTA/FOSTA bill, a law intended to prevent sex trafficking, which found that the quick removal of sexual content online, and websites, reduced the safe spaces sex workers had to advertise their work online. As a result, femicide toward sex workers increased since the implementation of the bill, they argued. “To put it bluntly, when sex workers do not have safe space to advertise their own services, form community and connections, and have access to peer-led safety services like Bad Date lists… we die. There is no sugar-coating this, and you must confront this as a reality.” The social media platform TikTok noted that a focus on “illegal content” over “harmful content” provides social media platforms with the most clarity as to how they can operate because it would reinforce the legislation’s limitations in regard to the five defined categories of content. “We strongly urge the government to work with platforms to collaboratively develop workable definitions of harmful content that are clear, enforceable and scalable, and which will provide us with the most certainty when evaluating content.” The Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic at the University of Ottawa (CIPPIC) wrote in a consultation document that the proposal "combines some of the worst elements of other laws around the world," and called on the department to overhaul its current approach. "We are seriously concerned about numerous elements of the proposed law – such as the lack of adequate transparency requirements, the loose requirements for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) to obtain basic subscriber information, the various jurisdictional issues raised by the law, and whether an administrative body like the Digital Resource Council should be able to determine what speech is legal under Canadian law," CIPPIC wrote. Since producing a "What We Heard" report on the consultation in February, the Department of Canadian Heritage announced that an "expert panel," made up of 12 people from across academia and the advocacy sector, would hold nine workshops and consult with stakeholders to discuss how to construct the legislation. – Reporting by Michael Lee-Murphy at mleemurphy@thewirereport.ca and Jenna Cocullo at jcocullo@thewirereport.ca and editing by Paul Park at ppark@thewirereport.ca

Facebook doesn’t rule out blocking news content if C-18 passes, docs reveal telecom opposition to online harms framework

Broadcast | April 26, 2022

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us

Facebook doesn’t rule out blocking news content if C-18 passes, docs reveal telecom opposition to online harms framework

Broadcast | April 26, 2022

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Related Stories

Meta’s fight with feds impacts emergency info sharing for southwestern Ont. municipality

OPINION: The Online News Act is a dismal failure that must be replaced

Fiscal 2024 off to a strong start: Stingray

Feds, Cogeco, Quebecor, say goodbye to Meta

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us