Search Results for: literacy

Could government online safety legislation make it less safe to be online?

The mandate letter for Canada’s Minister of Canadian Heritage includes a section calling for online safety legislation. The challenge is how to do this within a democratic framework. The Heritage website says:

The Government of Canada is committed to putting in place a transparent and accountable regulatory framework for online safety in Canada. Now, more than ever, online services must be held responsible for addressing harmful content on their platforms and creating a safe online space that protects all Canadians.

There is a lot captured in those two sentences.

It sounds good if you say it quickly, but challenges arise when you pause to think about each clause. Putting in place a transparent and accountable regulatory framework? Holding online services responsible for the harmful content on their platforms? Holding the services responsible for creating safe online spaces?

Sri Lanka recently passed an Online Safety Bill [pdf, 130 KB] that has created concerns among civil liberties groups and the US government.

The Sri Lanka bill creates a 5-person Online Safety Commission with the powers and functions (among others):

1. to issue directives to persons, service providers or internet intermediaries, who have published or communicated or whose service has been used to communicate any prohibited statement, requiring them to provide to persons who have been adversely affected by any prohibited statement, an opportunity of responding to such prohibited statement;
2. to issue notices to persons who communicate false statements that constitute offences under this Act, to stop the communication of such statements;
3. to issue directives to persons who communicate prohibited statements under this Act, to stop the communication of any such statements;
4. to issue notices to any internet access service providers or internet intermediary to disable access to an online location which contains a prohibited statement by the end users in Sri Lanka or to remove such prohibited statement from such online location;
5. to refer to the appropriate court for its consideration any communications that may be in contempt of court or prejudicial to the maintenance of the authority and impartiality of the judiciary, and to provide such assistance as may be required from any court in respect of any matter so referred to such court; and,
6. to make recommendations to service providers, internet intermediaries and internet access service providers to remove prohibited statements.

Canadians should be concerned about government over reach on freedoms of expression. [A veteran Member of Parliament introduced a private members bill this past Monday that limits “promotion” of fossil fuels.]

Canada held a public consultation in 2021. At the time, the summary observed that “respondents signaled the need to proceed with caution.”

Writing about the UK’s Online Safety Bill last April, the post explored whether government regulations might actually make it less safe to be online. Concerns with the UK bill included censorship powers over digital speech and content, and the creation of backdoors into encryption systems, which could then be exploited by malevolent actors.

The editor of Telecoms.com observed “Given the degree of technological and ethical illiteracy shown in the drafting of this bill and its passage through the House of Commons, there seems little hope that the Lords will understand what’s at stake.” Ottawa observers might ascribe similar levels of illiteracy to Canadian parliamentarians.

The UK Bill received Royal Assent late last year. Ofcom, the UK communications regulator, has started establishing regulations to enforce the new bill.

As Canada’s government resumes, will it move forward with online safety legislation? Do Canadians have sufficient trust in our government institutions to agree with moving forward?

Will lower cost connections get more people online?

That is the objective of a number of initiatives being offered by telecom companies across the country. Programs provide devices and services to disadvantaged individuals and families.

Long time readers of this blog will recall that Rogers launched its Connected for Success internet program, the first-of-its-kind program in Canada in 2013 in Toronto. The company expanded the program to subsidized tenants and members of housing partners across the Rogers internet footprint in Ontario, New Brunswick and Newfoundland. In 2021, Rogers added new speed options and TV bundles to meet customers’ evolving needs and expanded eligibility to make the program available to more low-income Canadians. Over the past year, the program expanded across Western Canada and Northern Ontario; a new national Connected for Success wireless 5G program was launched.

Rogers offers an array of services branded under Connected for Success. According to Rogers, Connected for Success is available for over 2.5 million eligible recipients of Provincial income support, Provincial disability benefits, Rent-geared-to-income tenants of a non-profit housing partner organization, Seniors receiving the federal Guaranteed Income Supplement, or the Resettlement Assistance Program. In addition, households receiving the Maximum Canada Child Benefit and Maximum Guaranteed Income Supplement are eligible through the federal Connecting Families program described below.

• Rogers Connected for Success 5G mobile plan features: Access to 5G/5G+ network; 3GB (at speeds up to 256 Mbps). Data at reduced speeds thereafter;
  Unlimited Canada-wide talk and text; Unlimited international texting and picture/video messaging from Canada; U.S. & International Preferred Rate included; Call Display with Name Display; Voicemail; Call Waiting and group calling; Access to Roam Like Home; 2,500 Call Forwarding Minutes; and, Spam Call Detect. Customers can also get a no-cost 5G smartphone with financing as long as they keep this mobile plan for 24 months. (Customers can bring their own 5G-enabled device if preferred.)

TELUS offers a portfolio of services branded under“Connecting For Good”:

• Mobility for Good: Mobility for Good for youth provides a free smartphone and plan to youth aging out of foster care, helping them successfully transition to independence. Mobility for Good for seniors provides access to a discounted smartphone and low-cost mobility rate plan for Canadian seniors receiving a Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) amount of $6,500 or more annually, ensuring that they stay connected to loved ones and can access important resources and information.
• Internet for Good: TELUS Internet for Good offers low-cost, high-speed Internet to qualified low-income families and seniors, youth aging out of care and people with disabilities in need.
• Tech for Good: Available nationwide, Tech for Good helps improve quality of life, independence and personal empowerment of people with disabilities by offering customized recommendations and training on assistive technology for mobile devices, computers and laptops.
• Health for Good: TELUS Health for Good initiatives like mobile health clinics and free or low-cost access to TELUS Health MyCare™ counselling and TELUS Health Medical Alert services make healthcare more accessible for marginalized individuals who often face significant barriers accessing quality health care.

Nationally, lower cost connections are available to eligible low income households, branded under the federal government’s Connecting Families Initiative. This program is overseen by Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED). The costs are covered by various Internet Service Providers across Canada.

There are 2 plans offered under Connecting Families.

• Plan 1: $10 per month which includes: Up to 10 Mbps download speed; 1 Mbps upload speed; 100 GB of data.
• Plan 2: $20 per month which includes: Up to 50 Mbps download speed; 10 Mbps upload speed; 200 GB of data.

There are Connecting Families service providers nearly everywhere in Canada: Access Communications Co-operative; Beanfield Technologies; Bell Canada (including Bell Aliant and Bell MTS); Cogeco; Coopérative de câblodistribution de l’arrière-pays (CCAP); Hay Communications; Mornington; NorthwestTel; Novus Entertainment; Quadro; Rogers; Rural Net; SaskTel; Tbaytel; TELUS; Vidéotron; and, Westman Media Cooperative.

There are still too many Canadians who aren’t online despite all of these options for lower cost connections for internet and mobile services and devices. As we have discussed before, there are non-price factors inhibiting people from connecting to broadband services.

Alberta recently launched a free digital literacy training program, available in English and French, with 19 courses divided between Basic and Intermediate streams. I’ll have more about this in the coming weeks.

What more do we need to do to get more people online?

Do people have a BS blindspot? How many people think they are better at detecting misinformation than in reality?

Canadian psychologists, Shane Littrell (University of Toronto) and Jonathan Fugelsang (University of Waterloo) have been examining misinformation for a number of years. Last year, their paper in Thinking and Reasoning revealed a somewhat dangerous paradox. It seems the more confident we are in being able to distinguish between truth and misinformation, the more likely we are to be susceptible to false information: what they call the BS blindspot. Not only do the people worst at detecting misinformation think their abilities exceed reality, they also think they are better than most.

As I have been writing over the past few months (December’s “Creating more sophisticated content consumers”, and January’s “Dealing With disinformation”), we need to understand how to counter misinformation.

Littrell and Fuselsang have a new study released in Applied Cognitive Psychology [pdf, 4 MB] found “that asking people to reflect on why they find certain statements meaningful helps reduce receptivity to some types of misinformation but not others.”

It seems that much depends on the source of the information. The researchers found that claims from perceived experts can be largely immune to the kinds of interventions relying on reflective thinking.

In Illuminating human bias and our ability to be misled, Waterloo quotes Professor Fugelsang endorsing a long-term digital literacy strategy. “We need to teach misinformation awareness, healthy skepticism and encouraging reflective thinking early on in life — as early as elementary school.”

Is reflection the best medicine to treat an epidemic of misinformation? It depends. But, Littrell and Fugelsang suggest a reflective pause for anyone encountering information related to health, finance or politics, especially online.

We need to become more sophisticated consumers of content and information, to see past the BS blindspot. It needs to be considered a key component of improving our overall digital literacy.

What is the best approach for governments to be dealing with disinformation?

Before the holidays, I asked if more sophisticated content consumers would help Canada avoid the need to implement online harms restrictions? Can investment in improved digital literacy be effective?

An article in Financial Times by Bellingcat founder Eliot Higgins argues that “education, not regulation, is the answer.”

As the digital realm’s challenges mount, calls for state-led intervention grow louder. Governments across the world, alarmed by the implications of unbridled platforms, are contemplating regulatory measures to curb the spread of disinformation. But while the intent might be noble, the journey towards state-mediated truth is rife with complexities.
…
The potential for governmental over-reach is clear. While democratic nations might employ regulations with a genuine intent to combat falsehoods, the same tools could be weaponised by authoritarian regimes to suppress dissent, curtail freedoms and consolidate power. Russia, China, Iran and Venezuela could even use western states’ attempts at countering disinformation as a pretext to justify their own draconian censorship and control of the internet. In such contexts, the line between combating misinformation and controlling narratives becomes precariously thin. The risk? A digital space where genuine discourse is stifled under the guise of regulatory oversight.

He warns that government interventions could “inadvertently exacerbate the very problem they aim to solve.”

“If people perceive these interventions as mere tools to control narratives rather than genuine efforts to combat disinformation, public trust could erode further.”

How do we combat misinformation without impeding digital freedoms? Education is the key.

In short, combat misinformation with good information and training how to distinguish between good and bad. Dealing with disinformation requires investment in education.

Addressing the root causes of disinformation requires a grassroots approach. Education stands at the forefront of this strategy. The idea is simple yet transformative: integrate open-source investigation and critical thinking into the curriculum. Equip the youth with the skills to navigate the labyrinthine digital realm, to question, analyse and verify before accepting or sharing information.
…
The potential of such a grassroots movement doesn’t stop at school gates. Envision a world where universities become hubs of open-source investigation, with national and international networks of students sharing methodologies, tools and insights. As these students move into their professional lives, they carry forward not just skills but a mindset — one that values evidence over hearsay and critical thinking over blind acceptance.

Higgins suggests media organisations could form partnerships with university-level, creating “pop-up newsrooms and investigative collectives.”

Such an approach is by no means easy. It will require a collaboration between policymakers, news media, technology leaders, educators, and academic institutions. Implicit is a greater degree of difficulty than we have typically seen emerging from Canada’s digital policy framework. But there is a certain degree of urgency associated with getting started.

In late December, Statistics Canada reported that nearly half of all Canadians found it more difficult to distinguish between true and false information than it was three years earlier.

Let me leave you with a final quote from Higgins: “In a world where any information, regardless of its veracity, is readily accessible, the traditional educational paradigm could be upended. Historical revisionism, fuelled by falsehoods, could reshape collective memories. How does one teach critical thinking in an environment where facts are fluid?”

What is on the agenda for the year ahead?

As we gear back up after the Christmas and New Year’s holidays, it is somewhat customary to look ahead to the coming year.

Here is what tops my list:

• Driving universal adoption
• Online harms
• Regulatory overreach
• Mandated wholesale access
• Impacts of investment on coverage and resilience
• Digital literacy

I published my 2023 reflections in mid-December and indicated that the issue of driving increased adoption would need to be a carry-over to the year ahead. In my agenda for 2023, I wrote “there is a big difference between having universal access to broadband, and attaining universal adoption of that service.”

A number of reports indicate that affordability is not the primary barrier inhibiting broadband adoption. We saw that most recently in Ofcom’s Online Nation report. The UK report matches Canadian data showing just a quarter of those without a home connection cite the cost of service as the main reason. Across the country (including the far north), service providers have targeted programs to address affordability for disadvantaged households.

Still, we continue to have issues with people appreciating the utility of a broadband connection. I sometimes wonder if the social research is sufficiently adept at assessing whether “I don’t have a need for broadband” is a euphemism for “I have other priorities for my limited income”. If a parent is having to make difficult choices about buying name-brand versus no-name macaroni and cheese to feed the family dinner, then maybe a connected computer just isn’t a priority. As various levels of government continue to fund improved broadband access, I believe that more needs to be done to understand the factors that are inhibiting adoption, and then develop actions to relax each of those inhibitions.

Many of my 2024 agenda items have overlap with others. For example, to what extent have concerns about online safety and cyber security hindered adoption of broadband among those who are not yet connected?

Online harms will be on the agenda for the coming year. Misinformation, disinformation, and hate are significant online challenges. However, in a democratic society, what is the appropriate approach to address harmful forms of expression? As I wrote last year, the government is exploring new legislation but I am not convinced that this is the appropriate approach.

Will regulatory overreach be overruled by the courts or by changes in government policy? The CRTC is planning substantial organizational growth (30%) to deal with the Online News Act and the Online Streaming Act. Before the holidays, there was an interesting article from the US Chamber of Commerce, “How the FCC’s Regulatory Overreach Impedes Internet for All”.

We have seen how some of the CRTC’s determinations on mandated wholesale access can lead to reduced competition by stifling investment. How does that impact coverage for broadband, advanced wireless services, and investment in increased network resilience?

Improved digital literacy and education seems to be a common theme across many of the items on this year’s agenda. Can improved digital education help reduce vulnerability to certain forms of cyber attacks?

It is shaping up to be a busy year. Hopefully, I’ll be more successful checking these items off my list than some of my personal New Year’s resolutions.

What else do you have on your telecom policy plan for 2024?