Post Tagged with: "meta"

NO FISHING PRIVATE by Leo Reynolds https://flic.kr/p/AxD28 (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

The Government’s Fishing Expedition: Why the Bill C-18 Motion Establishes a Dangerous Precedent For Those Who Dare to Oppose Legislation

The Canadian Heritage committee moved ahead yesterday with a Bill C-18 motion that should strike fear in any group that participates in the political process. In a chaotic few minutes toward the end of the meeting, Liberal MP Anthony Housefather introduced a new motion that removed some of the worst of the authoritarian-style provisions previously proposed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage that demanded the private communications of potentially thousands of Canadians. However, it still retained mandated document disclosures that should send a chill into companies, NGOs, and anyone else that engages in, or strategizes about, government legislation. Calling executives into committee is not only appropriate, it is often essential. So too is following up with document demands based on the discussion. But in this case, the Heritage committee is engaged in a fishing expedition based largely on opposition to government legislation.

The Consequence of Mandated Payments for Links: Facebook Confirms It Will Drop News Sharing in Canada Under Bill C-18

Google has been in the spotlight for the past few weeks with reports that it has been testing removal news links from search results. The move sparked outrage from MPs, who grilled executives earlier today at Canadian Heritage committee. But now it appears Google has company: the Globe and Mail reports that Facebook has confirmed that it will remove news sharing from its platforms if Bill C-18 passes in its current form. The decision, which would affect Meta platforms Facebook and Instagram, should not come as a surprise since it warned that it was considering the possibility last fall. In fact, the case for Facebook blocking news sharing is even stronger than Google given that news constitutes only three percent of news feeds on the platform and the experience in Australia was that its removal had little impact on user engagement.

Why the Real Bill C-18 Threat is Bill C-18

Facebook is a hard company to support. Earlier this week, I attended an excellent talk with Frances Haugen, the well-known Facebook whistleblower, who delivered a compelling case that the social media giant, driven by profit maximization, consistently errs on the side of technical choices that keeps users engaged, angry, and on the platform, often at an enormous societal cost. Haugen identified numerous harms associated with the company’s practices – privacy, the impact on children, misinformation, and algorithmic settings that often inflame rather than educate – and emphasized that there was a need to address these concerns through better regulation (notably transparency and privacy rules).

Haugen’s talk came to mind yesterday as Facebook released a blog post confirming that it had not been invited to appear before the Canadian Heritage committee studying Bill C-18, outlining its concerns, and making it clear that it was starting to think about the prospect of blocking news sharing in Canada:

faced with adverse legislation that is based on false assumptions that defy the logic of how Facebook works, we feel it is important to be transparent about the possibility that we may be forced to consider whether we continue to allow the sharing of news content in Canada.

There will be much effort by the government and media lobby groups to paint Facebook as engaging in threatening tactics. These should be rejected because while there is a desperate need for legislative reforms to address some of Facebook’s harms, the harms from Bill C-18 also deserve attention. In the context of the bill, the real threat is not Facebook but a legislative process that has undermined democratic norms by blocking dozens of witnesses, threatening the free flow of information by payment for links, and rewarding some of Canada’s wealthiest companies such as Bell and leaving small media companies ineligible.