What does misinformation or hate even mean?
The most important question is WHO GETS TO DEFINE IT?
It seems that every day, we are being warned of the dangers of mis/disinformation and online hate. Our Prime Minister has made it one of his most important political priorities. His newest law that passed last week (Bill C-11) is regarded as the world’s most extensive internet regulation legislation. It will give government agencies (the CRTC) the power to regulate all online content in Canada. My understanding on this issue is that up until now, the CRTC only ever had oversight powers over broadcasters and traditional media. But now they will be able to regulate all user-generated content online.
This ultimately means that the Trudeau government will finally get the chance to crack down on what “they think” is misinformation or hate online. Similarly to how China has operated for years, Canada will soon have the luxury of targeting any social media personalities that state information that the government disapproves of. Some actually cheer this type of power being given to government and in a perfect world, maybe I would agree. The problem is, who defines “misinformation” or “hate”?
What if the PM, Justin Trudeau gets to define misinformation?
If Justin Trudeau gets to define it, he would have forced Twitter and Facebook to ban anyone who said Bill C21 (the recent gun legislation) would affect hunters. Just 6 months before introducing an amendment that actual would ban thousands of currently used rifles by hunters, Trudeau told the media that anyone claiming so was simply “spreading dis/misinformation”.
What if the Minister of Environment, Steven Guilbeault gets to define misinformation?
If Mr. Guilbeault gets to decide what the CRTC cracks down on, then the Liberal party would be happy to see the official opposition leader banned from social media for “spreading misinformation”. Pierre Poilievre’s crime? He was campaigning this week and vaguely claimed that the carbon tax is hurting Canadians.
So yes, according to this Minister, criticizing a government policy is “misinformation”…
What if Public Health authorities get to define hate?
In 2021, one of Canada’s leading health authorities told the world that those who downplayed the risks of COVID or opposed public health restrictions (whom would ultimately be proven right) were “white supremacists”.
They weren’t alone. This was a common tactic throughout this pandmeic. Anyone speaking against government policy was branded as an extremist or racist.
“They are extremists who don’t believe in science, they’re often misogynists, also often racists.”
Justin Trudeau, when referring to unvaccinated Canadians (September 2021)
If the government or the CRTC had the powers of Bill C11 three years ago, maybe this pandemic would have gone much smoother. They could have just stamped out every Canadian who opposed lockdowns and all the unvaccinated from the internet. This likely would have rid the entire country of all racisms and extremism… The Chinese Communist Party would have observed with envy.
What if I get to define hate?
My first violator would be one of Canada’s most popular newspapers. On August 26, 2021, this was the Toronto Star’s front page.
If this doesn’t promote hate, then what does?
To be clear, I wouldn’t even want the power to determine what gets banned or not from the Canadian internet. Although I find the Toronto Star’s cover repulsive and Trudeau various remarks clearly lies, I reserve the right to make my own judgements on these things. I don’t want the government telling me what is true and not true. I don’t want the government telling me what is hateful or not. Because they don’t even know themselves. They have been wrong time and time again.
In early 2020 if I was to tell everyone on social media to go out and buy masks to protect the community, I would have been accused of spreading misinformation (the narrative at the time was that masks were correctly useless).
In 2021 if I told everyone to avoid using masks, I would again be accused of spreading misinformation (although that that claim is now supported by the most reputable health organizations studying health interventions.)
Do you understand the slippery slope here?
Even if you agree with everything Justin Trudeau states and you don’t have a problem with him decided on all our behalves what is true and what is not. What happens if that power is eventually handed over to his opposition? Would you be happy with Pierre Poilievre, Maxime Bernier or Jagmeet Singh deciding what is true and what is not online? What is allowable or not allowable to be said online.?
Great write up again, I’m 100% agreeing with you on ALL your points. 👍🏻