Article
Recommendations to Strengthen Canada’s Response to the Spread of Disinformation Online
Citizens’ Assembly on Democratic Expression
Share
Released:January 19, 2022
Project: DemX
Chair’s Note
Since the start of our work in 2019, public interest concerning the impact of social media has grown. Proposed legislation introduced during the last parliament ignited widespread public debate, while revelations about the inner workings of the platforms sparked outcry as well as calls for greater accountability.
In this, our second year, we again invited Canadians to volunteer to advise the Commission on Democratic Expression as well as the
federal government on the regulation of digital platforms. In the midst of a pandemic, more than 600 Canadians volunteered to serve and 42 were randomly selected to represent the provinces and territories.
This year’s Assembly was asked to consider whether there should be legal penalties or other consequences for the spread of disinformation. It did not hesitate to call for aggressive public action.
As the Assembly observes, disinformation is a scourge of the digital age — and one set to worsen. The Assembly is alarmed at the prospect of a digital public square awash in scams that fleece consumers and sophisticated campaigns that distort and manipulate public opinion.
Like the members of the 2020 Assembly, they are perplexed and disappointed by the slow pace of government action and believe this is an issue that cuts across partisan lines. Their message is clear: action is overdue and urgently required.
They believe that criminal penalties should apply to those who knowingly conspire to deceive Canadians. They contend that Canadian authorities should be relentless in their efforts to safeguard core democratic institutions, beginning with our electoral system, reaffirming the need for limits to deceptive speech during campaign periods.
But the Assembly members are also mindful of the challenges law enforcement face in apprehending and successfully prosecuting individuals who perpetrate disinformation campaigns — especially when they originate outside of Canada.
Consequently, they build on the recommendations of the 2020 Assembly and deem user ownership and control of data essential. They believe that allowing users to better manage and filter their online experience can provide important protections. This includes introducing standardized labelling, adopting consistent codes of conduct, and disclosing exactly how algorithms and advertisers are shaping what users see and experience online.
The members also believe that public awareness of these issues is low and that Canadians by-and-large lack the digital literacy skills to discern credible online content. It may be easy to call for more public education but it’s a recommendation that deserves to be taken very seriously. As the members discussed, the rapid pace of technological and social change has vastly outstripped any commensurate efforts to ensure that Canadians are ready to engage with these technologies confidently and on a more equal footing.
This second report again affirms that at the crux of the debate about platform regulation is an alarm that social cohesion and trust are being undermined. It reflects a strong desire to see governments step into the breach and reaffirm core national values — including the rule of law and our Charter rights. The members well appreciate that democracies rely on credible information that is broadly understood by the wider public. The COVID-19 crisis has been a poignant backdrop to their deliberations by demonstrating how dangerous unchecked disinformation can be.
Their report, written in their own words and contained in the middle section of this document, spells out the measures they believe governments and industry should adopt and which Canadians themselves should demand.
The 2021 Assembly members should be commended for their diligence and collegiality. They found themselves in the midst of a charged debate and worked to find common ground. Their recommendations represent a consensus view by Canadians working without any partisan or commercial considerations. Over more than forty hours — first online over three Saturdays and then during four days in Ottawa before the Omicron wave — they heard from 13 speakers and, working in both official languages, articulated their values, concerns and priorities.
I would also like to thank those parliamentarians who attended this year’s Assembly as well as the OECD for its interest in this work. The Canadian Citizens’ Assembly on Democratic Expression is one of more than 400 deliberative processes that the OECD has tracked over the past decade, predominantly in North America and Europe. Together these processes are helping to demonstrate the capacity of the public to play a far greater and more sophisticated role in policy making.
Sincerely,
Peter MacLeod
Chair, Citizens’ Assembly on Democratic Expression
Articles
Recommendations to Strengthen Canada’s Response to New Digital Technology and Reduce the Harm Caused by their Misuse
How can we create a vibrant digital public sphere that doesn’t by design expose people to an ocean of baser instincts — much less to hatred and abuse? The Citizens’ Assembly on Democratic Expression explores the question of online harms, as Canadians spend more and more time on the Internet, particularly in the COVID-19 pandemic. These 42 members, randomly selected from a pool of volunteers, who we hope represent the widest possible range of voices and perspectives, come together to provide 33 recommendations that balance the harms of misuse of technology with freedom of speech.
Harms Reduction: A Six-Step Program to Protect Democratic Expression Online
The health of our democracy ultimately depends on citizens having the capacity, willingness and opportunity to participate in our public life. Following nine months of study and deliberations, the Canadian Commission on Democratic Expression has settled on a six-part, made-in-Canada plan to address hate speech and other online harms, while balancing freedom of speech.
Processes, People and Public Accountability
Researchers and reporters documented three forms of harmful online communication during Canada’s 2019 federal election campaign: abuse of individuals, intolerance and hate toward marginalized groups in public online spaces, and an increase in support for hate in private online spaces. In this report, authors Heidi Tworek and Chris Tenove propose a framework to distinguish key dimensions of harmful online communication in Canada, and offer several principles to guide policy development in Canada.
The Legal Aspects of Hate Speech in Canada
As a starting point for further dialogue, lawyer Lex Gill explores the legal tensions and policy questions that have historically animated debates surrounding hate speech in Canada. This report summarizes some of the most significant recent developments, in particular the ways technological, economic and social change have begun to challenge the ways we think about harmful expression.
Public Interest and Media Infrastructures
Today’s media systems include the powerful social media companies that watch, commodify, and manipulate us as they buy and sell our data. Mike Ananny urges a more sophisticated understanding of the privately controlled infrastructures where important decisions are made shaping behaviours, beliefs and online news. These might look like boring, messy, technical places where only engineers work, but regulators need to grasp their complexities and tackle the prevailing secrecy to better protect the public interest.
Science Disinformation in a Time of Pandemic
By drawing parallels to elections, climate change and the anti-vaccination movement, author Christopher Dornan illustrates how disinformation about COVID-19 can pose significant risks for public health, social cohesion and collective trust. Dornan identifies several useful recommendations for citizens, governments and social media platforms to consider to effectively combat disinformation and engage in evidence-based discussion about scientific findings.