What should be the role of government in regulating misinformation?

That is an important question being considered in Canada and around the world as governments seek solutions to online harms and the spread of misinformation. My own views on the subject have been evolving, as I wrote early this year.

As the Center for News, Technology and Innovation (CNTI) writes, “the credibility of information the public gets online has become a global concern. Of particular importance… is the impact of disinformation – false information created or spread with the intention to deceive or harm – on electoral processes, political violence and information systems around the world.”

It’s important to distinguish between “hate” and that which is “merely offensive”. We may not like encountering offensive content, but does that mean there should be legal restrictions preventing it? Readers have seen me frequently refer to Michael Douglas’ address in Aaron Sorkin’s “The American President“. “You want free speech? Let’s see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who’s standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.”

My post in January referred to a Newsweek article in which Aviva Klompas and John Donohoe wrote:

The old saying goes, sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. Turns out that when those words are propelled by online outrage algorithms, they can be every bit as dangerous as the proverbial sticks and stones.
…
When it comes to social media, the reality is: if it enrages, it engages… Eliciting outrage drives user engagement, which in turn drives profits.

But my views are also informed by years living in the United States, a country that has enshrined speech freedoms in its constitution.

As CNTI notes “Addressing disinformation is critical, but some regulative approaches can put press freedom and human rights at great risk.”

Ben Sperry provides another perspective in a paper soon to be published in the Gonzaga Law Review. “The thesis of this paper is that the First Amendment forecloses government agents’ ability to regulate misinformation online, but it protects the ability of private actors — ie. the social-media companies themselves — to regulate misinformation on their platforms as they see fit.”

The Sperry paper concludes that in the US, regulating misinformation cannot be government mandated. Government could “invest in telling their own version of the facts”, but it has “no authority to mandate or pressure social-media companies into regulating misinformation.”

So, if government can’t mandate how misinformation is handled, by what rights can social media companies edit or block content? The author discusses why the “state-action doctrine” protects private intermediaries. According to Sperry, the social media platforms are positioned best to make decisions about the benefits and harms of speech through their moderation policies.

He argues that social media platforms need to balance the interests of users on each side in order to maximize value. This includes setting moderation rules to keep users engaged. That will tend to increase the opportunities for generating advertising revenues.

Canada does not yet have the same history of constitutional protection of speech rights as the United States. However, most social media platforms used here are US tech companies. Any Canadian legislation regulating online misinformation is bound to attract concerns from the United States.

About a year and a half ago, Konrad von Finckenstein and Peter Menzies released a relevant paper for the MacDonald Laurier Institute. In “Social media responsibility and free speech: A new approach for dealing with ‘Internet Harms’” [pdf, 619KB], the authors say that Canada’s approach to date has missed the mark. “Finckenstein and Menzies note that the only bodies with the ability and legitimacy to combat online harms are social media companies themselves. What is needed is legislation that establishes a regime of responsibility for social media companies.” Their paper proposes legislation that would protect free expression online while confronting disinformation, unrestrained hate speech, and other challenges.

The UK Online Safety Bill is continuing to work its way through British Parliament.

Canada already has laws prohibiting the wilfull promotion of hate, as applied in a recent case in Quebec. In that case, a man was convicted of promoting hatred against Jews in articles written for the no-Nazi website, the Daily Stormer. He was sentenced to 15 months in jail with three years of probation.

Does Canada need to introduce specific online harms legislation?

What is the right approach?

These papers provide perspectives worth consideration by policy makers.

Can connectivity play a role in fighting climate change digitally, contributing to Canada’s sustainability goals?

That is the theme of a new report from Accenture, released earlier this week by Canadian Telecommunications Association. “Canada’s next sustainability frontier: Powering digital transformation with connectivity” [ pdf, 12.4MB] explores the environmental impact of connected technology and industrial reinvention.

The new report expands on Accelerating 5G in Canada: The Role of 5G in the Fight Against Climate Change discussed a few months ago in “Broadband’s broader benefits”.

Digital transformation includes the deployment of industrial Internet of Things technology, artificial intelligence, cloud computing, and other technologies to drive increased productivity. Technology enables re-engineered processes and automated operations, powered by data and analytics. “By leveraging technology to produce the same or increased outputs with fewer inputs and waste, this improved productivity, in turn, reduces resource and energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. With access to better data on their operations, businesses can further improve their processes over time, driving continuous improvement in both efficiency and sustainability.”

The report examines three specific use cases in key Canadian sectors: oil and gas, mining, and agriculture. Accenture says predictive maintenance of oil rig equipment can significantly reduce downtime and energy consumption, leading to 20% reductions in wasted fuel. Connectivity improves management of mining tailing ponds, leading to a 90% reduction in incidents, and improved worker safety. Precision agriculture, with connected sensors and drones, reduce water and fertilizer use by 20-40%. Each of these sectors are described in greater detail in the report.

Most sustainability initiatives focus on renewables and alternative energy. Digital transformation of key industrial sectors can play a significant role in Canada’s sustainable future. “Canada’s next sustainability frontier” makes the case for digital transformation as part of the solution space.

How do we get there?

The report identifies levers for Canada’s sustainability acceleration.

1. Expansion of the Next Generation of Network. CSPs need to continue to deploy and upgrade wireless and wireline network infrastructure so businesses have the connectivity they need to transform and power use cases
2. Use Case and Device Availability. Solution providers need to build and provide market-ready, proven use cases for businesses that can allow them to digitally transform and meet their industrial needs, accelerating adoption & benefits
3. Industry Verticals Transformation. Businesses need to undergo total enterprise reinvention by investing in their infrastructure and enterprise architecture, use cases and solutions, and talent & services to support digital integration
4. Incentives, Programs, and Impact Measurement. Government programs & incentives need to include digital transformation, supported by a strong end-to-end sustainability measurement strategy to measure and verify emissions more precisely, and drive continuous improvement

Continued investment in advanced telecommunications infrastructure is a key enabler for reimagined business processes. Connectivity, driving digital transformation, work together as important catalyts for fighting climate change digitally.

Canada’s future depends on connectivity.

A newly published paper from University of Calgary examines whether Canada’s spectrum policy has succeeded in promoting the interests of wireless consumers.

The paper, by Jeff Church of the Department of Economics, and Kent Fellows of the School for Public Policy, examined the opportunity cost associated with the spectrum set-asides in 2008. Recall, the original AWS-1 spectrum auction set-aside 40 MHz for new entrants, and the remaining 50 MHz was for open auction.

The issue of spectrum policy has been a frequent theme on these pages. A couple years ago, I wrote “Spectrum scarcity driving up wireless costs”. A number of articles have referred to costs, as much as $100 per year per subscriber, associated with Canada’s stubborn adherence to a four carrier policy.

Last December, Jack Mintz (President’s Fellow, School of Public Policy, University of Calgary) wrote, “Ottawa’s fourth wireless competitor fixation slows 5G adoption”, saying “Canada’s overall telecom policy is failing”. Mintz cites the Church / Fellows research – not yet published at the time of his article – when he claims “set-aside policies are misallocating spectrum, contrary to consumer interests.”

The newly published paper concludes “Allocating the set-aside spectrum to the incumbents instead of the entrants would do more for consumers by increasing quality than subsidizing competition.”

The data shows that Canada’s singular focus on boosting a fourth competitor through set-asides has had only a modest impact on consumer welfare. “We estimate the effect of the set-asides was to increase consumer surplus over the three year period from 2011-2013 by $932 million and the number of subscribers in 2013 by 1.4 million.”

However, the Church / Fellows research found that the number of wireless consumers would have increased by an additional 1.8 million to 2.5 million subscribers and the consumer surplus would have been $5.9 to $8.2 billion greater.

The set-aside policy had a modest impact in reducing quality-adjusted prices, from one to two percent, whereas if the spectrum was allocated to the three incumbents, quality-adjusted prices would have fallen by four to six percent. The focus of the Federal Government then, and since, was on the wrong market failure: the welfare gains from using spectrum policy to address a perceived market power issue are insignificant relative to the benefits of reallocating spectrum to increase the quality of wireless service.

As Jack Mintz explained, “In the interest of price competition, set-asides restrict incumbents’ quality of service.”

Rather than using set-asides to effectively subsidize new entrants, Church and Fellows found that it would have been better for wireless consumers had the government provided all service providers with unencumbered access to more spectrum.

Getting rid of the set-asides would increase service quality, and result in even lower quality-adjusted prices.

How should parliamentarians approach the public policy challenges arising from emerging technology such as Artificial Intelligence (AI)?

That question appears to be the raison d’être of a multi-partisan working group known as the Parliamentary Caucus on Emerging Technology (PCET). The Caucus is co-chaired by Members of Parliament Michelle Rempel-Garner, Anthony Housefather, and Brian Masse, as well as Senator Colin Deacon. The Caucus was formed recognizing that emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence, are usually deployed “faster than the speed of government.”

PCET recently issued a report as an update on its summer discussions with various parties from Canada and abroad. The report listed key take-aways:

1. Canada needs more forums and opportunities for multi-partisan discussion and education on issues like AI, in the House of Commons and the Senate
2. Canada can benefit from working collaboratively on the international stage on these issues
3. Consider how standards and other tools can help to address the issue of AI in the interim, as we await for legislation to be in force
4. It is worthwhile to look at ways for government to have regulatory agility on AI
5. Canada should consider what other international players are doing, and how their approaches could be implemented in the Canadian context

Earlier this year, I wrote a piece called “Regulatory humility”, suggesting that a little more regulatory humility goes a long way to minimize unintended consequences.

I am encouraged by the initial set of take-aways, especially the section calling for regulatory agility in approaching regulation of emerging technology. “The PCET was founded on the principle that oftentimes, regulators and parliaments are left playing catch-up on new technologies. With AI’s capabilities quickly expanding, and as these technologies are rapidly deployed, other mechanisms must be explored by the government to protect Canadians while also encouraging innovation.”

As I have written in the past, “Politicians looking to score points with intervention in the digital marketplace should carefully reflect on whether new laws are actually needed. What problems are we trying to fix?”

PCET says its approach favouring regulatory agility would “ensure that the digital economy is not left behind in Canada, while also recognizing that having regulatory agility could mean that concerns are mitigated more promptly.”

That is a reasonable philosophy. And the multi-partisan working group is a welcome approach.

While on the topic of AI, on October 23 there will be a webinar from the International Telecommunications Society looking at “Achieving Equitable AI Governance: Balancing Innovation and Responsibility”. The one-hour webinar begins at 10am Eastern and registration is free. Frequent readers know that I have been a big fan of the ITS webinars for staying current on emerging policy issues with top subject matter experts from around the globe.

I hope to see you on-line.

Online disinhibition effect is a term used by psychologists to refer to the tendancy by some who hide behind online anonymity to be nasty without fear of repercussions.

In the early days of my blog, there was a piece called “4 degrees of impersonal communications” in which I wrote:

people say things in emails that they would never say to someone over the phone. And, over the phone (especially in a voice message), we seem willing to speak in ways that one would never consider saying face-to-face.

I will add that people say things in anonymous comments on blogs that add a further dimension. Perhaps it is a sign of the indifference associated with mass anonymity.

In the segment, correspondent David Pogue spoke with professor Mary Aiken, a forensic cyber psychologist who shared four ways online conversations differ from in-person conversations:

• First, we can see each other in real life, looking at visual cues, reading body language.
• Second, online exchanges may not take place in real time, leading to the possibility that things are taken out of context or misinterpreted.
• Third, most online discussions are public, meaning that the impact of insults have the potential to be amplified, increasing the impact, the shame and the pain.
• Fourth, online anonymity means no repercussions for being mean, or hurtful.

“Add all this together and you get what psychologists call the online disinhibition effect.”

The segment refers to a report from Paladin Capital Group, “Towards a Safer Nation: The United States ‘Safety Tech’ Market” [pdf, 2.0MB].

A new sector, the online safety technology or ‘Safety Tech’ sector, which complements the existing cybersecurity industry is gaining prominence. This research report has found evidence of an emerging and thriving US Safety Tech sector that aims to deliver solutions to facilitate safer online experiences and protect people from psychological risks, criminal dangers and online harm. Importantly, Safety Tech innovations also have the capacity to protect people from the corrosive effects of misinformation, online harassment, discrimination, and extremism which increasingly threaten democracy and civil society.

What is the difference between cybersecurity and cyber safety? Binary; cybersecurity primarily focuses on protecting data, systems and networks; cyber safety or Safety Tech focuses on protecting people.

As the CBS correspondent says in the segment, “Never in the history of the internet has anyone’s mind been changed by being yelled at”.

As Canada’s Parliament considers legislation to address online harms, can technology help to address solutions? How do we separate the person from the idea?