So the Canadian government will soon be introducing legislation aimed at regulating platforms with respect to harmful speech, spearheaded by Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault. I'm concerned b/c we haven't seen a lot of serious thought from the Gov on this. A thread:

Guilbeault has taken this on as part of a large digital regulatory agenda that also includes things like requiring Canadian content on streaming services, and potentially forcing intermediaries to pay for news (like Australia). https://t.co/oVHCYC8I4J
We don't know what form the legislation will take, but there's cause for concern that it's partially going to look a lot like the German NetzDG law, and require hate speech and other illegal speech to be taken down quickly. It will also include a new regulator to do...something
The concern comes from the PM's mandate letter to the Minister, which asked him to "create new regulations for social media platforms, starting with a requirement that all platforms remove illegal content, including hate speech, within 24 hours or face significant penalties."
I haven't seen anything to suggest Guilbeault has moved away from this. His office was quoted recently as saying "our approach will require online platforms to monitor and eliminate illegal content that appears on their platforms." https://t.co/DF4VRlqVhn
Notably, a few weeks ago, a report was released by the Canadian Commission on Democratic Expression of the Public Policy Forum, funded by the Canadian Gov. The Report specifically called out NetzDG as a bad idea. No idea if that'll be listened to https://t.co/QZSTVWWTwA
I'm not convinced that something like NetzDG could survive Charter 2(b) scrutiny, given how limited the scope of hate speech laws are in Canada and the danger of incentivizing over-removal. See what happened in France: https://t.co/1wOw2RuiQU
With respect to the regulator, we know that's coming but not what it will actually do. The Canadian Commission on Democratic Expression called for a Duty to Act Responsibly enforced by a regulator. The Report fails to provide any detail about what this duty would be, however.
Possible that the new regulations could move in this direction, requiring the regulator to establish some sort of Code of Conduct (following the UK Online Harms White Paper approach). The Report also called for e-tribunals to be set up to adjudicate moderation decisions
I've seen this e-court recommendation before in @HeidiTworek's work, but lots of questions. What are the bases of the decisions? Platform policies? Code of conduct? Law? IHRL? How much harmonization do we want? Apply to volunteer moderation? What enforcement actions are in-scope?
In the report, @JameelJaffer's "Concurring Statement" (though he does not exactly concur) is right on. Recommending a Duty to Act Responsibly without content gets us nowhere, and it's not clear that public e-tribunals are better than regulated company processes
The Report did have some good parts, including a lot of smart proposals around transparency and requirements for impact assessments. If the legislation goes in this direction, I'll be quite happy. I am generally in favour of mandated transparency and due process requirements.
But it's not clear what impact that Report will have on the proposed regulations, if any. My guess is we'll see a NetzDG style fast takedown requirement paired with a regulator mandated to figure out its mandate. I hope to be pleasantly surprised.

More from Government

🧵⬇️1. Fb is LifeLog, LifeLog is Darpa, and DARPA is a Enterprise Run by CIA... Well... Past President... Big Tech, Big Pharma, MSM, HOLLYWOOD, DC...

Past Presidents....Zuckerberg, Gates...
All C_A... the Family business.... The company...


2. Past Presidents....Zuckerberg, Gates...
All C_A... the Family business.... The company...The Farm.... all C_A assets... most of them related by blood, business, or marriage...


3. "The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists. The American mind simply has not come to a realization of the evil which has been introduced into our midst." - J. Edgar Hoover


4. diff. names & faces.... Monsters that lurk in the Shadows. Swamp, Deep State, Establishment, Globalist Elite Cabal...

Shall we go back...How far back...


5. I know these monsters... it's when I try to explain them to others is when I run into a problem.This is why I'm better at retweeting and compiling. I never know where to start... Everytime I try to thread, i end up w/ a messy monstrous web.I'm better at helping others thread.

You May Also Like

"I really want to break into Product Management"

make products.

"If only someone would tell me how I can get a startup to notice me."

Make Products.

"I guess it's impossible and I'll never break into the industry."

MAKE PRODUCTS.

Courtesy of @edbrisson's wonderful thread on breaking into comics –
https://t.co/TgNblNSCBj – here is why the same applies to Product Management, too.


There is no better way of learning the craft of product, or proving your potential to employers, than just doing it.

You do not need anybody's permission. We don't have diplomas, nor doctorates. We can barely agree on a single standard of what a Product Manager is supposed to do.

But – there is at least one blindingly obvious industry consensus – a Product Manager makes Products.

And they don't need to be kept at the exact right temperature, given endless resource, or carefully protected in order to do this.

They find their own way.