The frenzy to ban kids from social media continues to grow with Culture Minister Marc Miller telling a House of Commons committee that the government has no choice but to act. Miller’s comments are consistent with the federal Liberal policy convention vote backing a minimum age of 16 and Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew announcing that his government will be the first in Canada to ban kids from both social media and AI chatbots. The problem, as I documented in detail last week, is that good intentions do not make for good policy. In this case, a social media ban is bad policy because it does not address the underlying problems with the platforms, evidence to date suggests it doesn’t work, and it creates its own harms. But the bad policy does not end there, as the possibility of extending that same framework to AI chatbots is now squarely on the table. This post examines the implications of a ban on kids’ use of AI chatbots, arguing that such an approach is even worse than a social media ban. To be clear, regulation of AI chatbots is needed, but a ban leaves the genuine concerns associated with AI chatbots largely untouched.
Latest Posts
Wilful Blindness?: How the Lawful Access Charter Statement Skips Bill C-22’s Most Constitutionally Vulnerable Provisions
The committee hearings on Bill C-22, the lawful access bill, kick off later today with an appearance by Justice Minister Sean Fraser and Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree, who will presumably use the opportunity to affirm their support for the bill and reject concerns that certain elements are inconsistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That position reflects the government’s Charter statement on the bill, which was released late last month. The statement walks through the Charter implications of new provisions such as the confirmation of service demand, yet what makes it particularly notable is that it avoids addressing some of the bill’s biggest concerns altogether with scant or no attention paid to mandated metadata collection and the risks associated with systemic vulnerabilities. Indeed, it is as if the government believes that if it ignores the potential violation of fundamental rights, the issue magically disappears.
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 267: Peter Nowak on Rogers, the Shaw Merger Aftermath, and the Limits of Canadian Telecom Policy
The recent announcement that Rogers is offering buyouts to half of its workforce is just the tip of the iceberg in a series of developments involving one of Canada’s dominant communications companies. It has seen rising consumer complaints, is cutting capital expenditures, increasingly pivoting towards sports and media, and is now looking to cut its workforce dramatically. Three years after the Rogers-Shaw merger, is this simply the predicted outcome of allowing that merger to go through?
To help assess what is happening, Peter Nowak, a veteran telecom journalist, joins the Law Bytes podcast. Peter has covered the industry, worked in the industry and now publishes “Do Not Pass Go”, a regular newsletter and a podcast focused on competition, monopoly, and corporate concentration in Canada.
Going Through the Motions: How Parliament Is Shutting Down Study and Debate on Political Party Privacy
Since the Carney government took power, it has shown an odd pre-occupation with preserving the power of federal political parties to use the personal information of millions of Canadians under fewer restrictions than those faced by practically any other organization in the country. It started with the quick introduction of Bill C-4, an “affordability measures” bill that buried provisions exempting parties from provincial privacy laws and substituted a weak system that applied retroactively to the year 2000. The Senate found the approach so deficient that it sent the bill back with a sunset clause requiring something better within three years, only for the government to reject the amendment and rush the bill to royal assent within hours. Now political party privacy is back in another bill, and the government is back to trying to shut down study and debate. The apparent hope is to pass rules that do not meet modern privacy standards and hope no one notices.
Why The Senate Got Antisemitism Only Half-Right
Two months ago, I wrote about gunfire that hit the doors of several Toronto-area synagogues, including the Shaarei Shomayim, the synagogue where I was married. That round of violence led many to affirm yet again that supportive words alone could no longer meet the moment. My Hub Canada op-ed notes that last week, a Senate committee delivered its answer: a 73-page report with 22 recommendations, including a Digital Safety Commission, expanded hate-crime units, and the reinstatement of the Special Envoy on Combatting Antisemitism. These are serious proposals. But a report documenting antisemitism in Canada that cannot name the full problem cannot solve it.
Recent Posts
Government Has a Choice: Why an AI Chatbot Ban for Kids is an Even Worse Idea Than a Social Media Ban 
Wilful Blindness?: How the Lawful Access Charter Statement Skips Bill C-22’s Most Constitutionally Vulnerable Provisions 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 267: Peter Nowak on Rogers, the Shaw Merger Aftermath, and the Limits of Canadian Telecom Policy 
Going Through the Motions: How Parliament Is Shutting Down Study and Debate on Political Party Privacy 
Why The Senate Got Antisemitism Only Half-Right
