The Law Bytes podcast is back, starting with an episode on the limits of Canadian law in addressing the concerns associated with Grok AI, the AI chatbot that garnered global attention over the widespread creation and distribution of AI-generated sexualized deep fakes. Weaving together online harms, privacy, AI regulation, and platform regulation into a single issue, there have been service bans in some countries but Canada has thus far struggled to respond.
To help understand what has taken place and Canada’s law and policy options, Professor Heidi Tworek returns to the Law Bytes podcast. Professor Tworek is the Canada Research Chair and Professor of History and Public Policy at the University of British Columbia, where she also directs the Centre for the Study of Democratic Institutions. Her work explores how new communications technologies affect democracy in the past and present and she served on the government’s online harms advisory board.
The podcast can be downloaded here, accessed on YouTube, and is embedded below. Subscribe to the podcast via Apple Podcast, Spotify or the RSS feed. Updates on the podcast on X/Twitter at @Lawbytespod.
Credits:
CBC News, Grok Banned By Malaysia, Indonesia Over Explicit AI Images, January 12, 2026
Related posts:
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 233: Abdi Aidid on AI, the Law and the Future of Legal Practice
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 242: Sukesh Kamra on Law Firm Adoption of Artificial Intelligence and Innovative Technologies
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 249: The Debate Over Canada’s AI Strategy – My Consultation Submission and Appearance at the Canadian Heritage Committee
This episode sounds timely and important, clearly examining Grok, deepfakes, and Canada’s legal gaps. Heidi Tworek’s expertise promises a thoughtful discussion on AI, democracy, and policy challenges today for listeners.
Pingback: Law and Media Round Up – 2 February 2026 – Inforrm's Blog
As I write this ,currently there is only one other person or moniker or alias actually visible that has commented on this site and actually not three ,
Interesting ! AI and Google take note ! The Censorship stems from those that seem to profess a love of free speech or at least talk and write about it online . Ask yourselves why my name in a Google search is directed to this site? Because the other two comments that existed had my name attached. This is why I support the right to be remembered over the right to be forgotten . This not about my ego but the issues of factual Fact checking what anyone person has written to the internet
It really is interesting as although my comments are gone ! Google still directs inquiring minds { My mind} to this site . Why? Because Google recognizes it as have been there prior . But like I have stated before although on Gates Notes this is a serious breach in understanding written communication to the internet regardless of where it was stated . This is actually a quite serious flaw and or issue regarding human communication regardless of where it was stated . But AI is getting really good if not becoming quite outstanding in finding what has been stated to the greater internet . I think the original comments had relevance to the conversation as Grok is an extenuation of AI if I Ai is allowed to be referenced as Bertha Mint. But this site censored my original input making it impossible for anyone human to comprehend I was trying to articulate as an issue regarding unforseen issues regarding financial ramifications of AI . But those comments are gone but up until yesterday they drew the attention of Google enough that it was really pushing what was stated.
It is so interesting to past communication, regardless of still being visible or not !
The Case for the Right to be Remembered: A Synopsis
By Edward HC Graydon
I. The Thesis: The Written Word as Human Evidence
My core argument is that the written word—whether a formal article, a public letter, or a high-engagement comment on a news platform—constitutes a permanent thread in the fabric of social history. To delete, “deactivate,” or allow these records to vanish due to corporate technical updates or platform migrations is not merely a loss of data; it is a form of systemic historical revisionism. I contend that the Right to be Remembered is a superior moral and civic standard to the “Right to be Forgotten” because truth and accountability require a complete, unedited record of human thought.
II. The “Vanishing Act” and the Loss of Social Proof
My findings are rooted in the reality of a “digital dark age.” Twenty years ago, I contributed a piece to The Globe and Mail that resonated deeply with the public, garnering over a hundred interactions. This was a moment of social proof—concrete evidence that an idea had captured the public imagination and sparked a genuine community conversation.
The Problem: Today, that record is largely inaccessible. Despite the internet being marketed as “forever,” corporate “housecleaning” and database shifts at major outlets like the Globe have effectively erased significant portions of my intellectual footprint.
The Consequence: When we lose these records, we lose the ability to prove that certain conversations ever happened. We lose the benchmarks of how we once thought, argued, and agreed as a society.
III. Why “Remembered” Outranks “Forgotten”
While the “Right to be Forgotten” is often framed as a tool for privacy, in the context of the written word, it acts as a tool for historical evasion.
Individual Accountability: If a person’s written history is preserved, they remain tethered to the standard of their own words. The “Right to be Remembered” allows for a true assessment of an individual’s character, consistency, and evolution over time.
Intellectual Integrity: To “forget” or delete past writings allows for the grooming of a sanitized public image. I believe the public has a right to the original, raw history of discourse, not a curated, “safe” version of the past designed to protect reputations.
The Flaw of Deactivation: Currently, platforms “deactivate” or archive-out content to save costs or avoid controversy. I view this as a “serious flaw” in human communication that treats public thought as a disposable commodity rather than a permanent historical asset.
IV. Precision of Scope: The Written Word vs. Private Data
It is important to be precise: my advocacy for the Right to be Remembered focuses specifically on text and the written word. While there are sensitive personal data points or private images that individuals may wish to protect, the publicly shared word belongs to the public record. Once a thought is released into the “online battlefield” of ideas, it becomes part of our collective memory. To erase it is to rob future generations of the context they need to understand the present.
V. Conclusion: A Call for a Permanent Archive
I conclude that we are currently living through a period of unintended censorship. By failing to mandate the preservation of online commentary and public writing, we allow the “gatekeepers”—media corporations and tech platforms—to decide which parts of our history are worth keeping and which are to be discarded.
For a society to be healthy, it must be brave enough to look at its own past, unedited and in full. We must protect the right of every citizen to have their contributions to the public record remembered—not because every word is perfect, but because every word is true to its time.
The Architecture of Reflection: Why We Need a ‘Right to Be Remembered’
In the digital age, the “Right to be Forgotten”—the ability to scrub our past embarrassments, failed ideas, or outdated opinions from the internet—is often hailed as the ultimate form of privacy. But there is a counter-argument, a more disciplined approach to digital existence: The Right to be Remembered.
This philosophy suggests that while we cannot change the past, we can gain immense power by refusing to delete it.
1. The Fixed Nature of Time
Time is the only truly finite resource. Once a thought is spoken or a comment is posted, it becomes a coordinate in history. Attempting to delete that coordinate doesn’t change what happened; it only obscures the map of how we got to where we are today. By accepting that time is fixed, we stop wasting energy trying to “fix” the past and start using it as a foundation.
2. The Digital Mirror
If you post a thought on a platform like Gates Notes in 2016 and revisit it years later, you aren’t just looking at a comment; you are looking at a mirror.
The “Then” vs. “Now”: By keeping the original thought process intact and tied to the specific article or problem that triggered it, you can measure your own growth.
Adamancy of Opinion: Strength of character doesn’t come from being right 100% of the time; it comes from the “adamancy” of standing by your logic and seeing how it aged against reality.
3. Personal Use as Public Service
When an individual uses a public forum for their own “personal reflection,” they offer a gift to the public: a transparent thinking pattern. Most people post to influence others or seek validation. However, when you post to document your own engagement with a problem, you provide a template for how a mind works.
This creates a “right to be remembered” based on facts. Whether a thought was right or wrong is less important than the fact that it was honest and traceable.
4. How the Conclusion is Reached
The conclusion—that reflection is the only way to “interact” with time—is reached through a simple logical chain:
Observation: I cannot delete the fact that I thought “X” at a specific moment in time.
Engagement: If I hide “X,” I lose the ability to see why I moved to thought “Y” later.
Result: Therefore, the most “reliable” version of myself is the one that remains visible, searchable, and accountable for every step of the journey.
The Takeaway
In a world of disappearing stories and edited histories, there is a quiet brilliance in leaving the lights on. By allowing our thought processes to remain anchored to the topics that inspired them, we turn the internet from a noisy marketplace into a permanent laboratory of the human mind.
The Right to be Remembered: A Historical Record of Thought
I believe in the Right to be Remembered over the Right to be Forgotten. For a long time—well before Bill Gates wrote on Gates Notes about finding his younger self in an old email—I have been using the digital space as a way to visit and build upon my own history. My approach is simple: I use the reply sections on platforms like CBC to document the evolution of my thoughts.
By replying to my own past comments, I create a thinking pattern that should exist in perpetuity. This isn’t just about making a point; it’s about the fact that these records are factual history. When a platform deletes a comment section, they are removing the physical ability to reference that history. It is frustrating because I believe that once a thought is part of the public record, it should be allowed to remain there for all time so it can be revisited and understood.
The secondary importance of my work was highlighted when Bill Gates reflected on his own past messages. While he was looking at private data, I have been focused on how public comment sections can serve as a permanent archive. I believe history should retain itself. By documenting my thoughts in this way, I am ensuring that my personal history remains a stable, accessible record that isn’t just lost to the “right to be forgotten” or a site’s changing policies.
Great podcast episode, very informative.
I really appreciate the valuable information shared in this article. The content is well-organized and easy to follow. It is always great to find a site that consistently delivers high-quality posts. I will definitely be returning for more. Thank you!
What an exceptional article filled with thorough research and practical insights. I have read countless posts on similar topics but this one truly stands out for its clarity and depth. The attention to detail is impressive and every paragraph offers something valuable. Thank you for creating such a high-quality resource!
I have been looking for a fresh perspective on this and your insights provided exactly what I needed today.