Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 16 - 30 of 546
Mario Dion
View Mario Dion Profile
Mario Dion
2021-05-28 13:02
Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you very much for inviting me to appear as you consider the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's submission for the 2021-2022 main estimates.
As many of you were not involved in the committee until last year, I will quickly describe the goals of my office since its creation 14 years ago.
Our primary goal is to help regulatees, that is, public office holders and members of the House of Commons, know and follow the rules in the Conflict of Interest Act and the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons.
In order to help the individuals subject to the rules, we continually improve how we communicate and engage with regulatees. This not only supports our primary goal, but also helps build trust in the office. It is important for us to work together with regulatees to help them comply with the Act and the Code as much as possible.
It is important that a continuous dialogue take place to avoid breaches. There must be trust between elected and appointed officials and their advisors in the office based on mutual respect and professionalism.
Over the years, a solid information management system has been created as it is key to providing the informed advice we try to give to regulatees. It also improves our efficiency because we don't have to reinvent the wheel each time advice is sought. It also ensures that we provide consistent advice from one individual to the next.
Our already established movement towards a digital office helped us tremendously when we moved to a virtual office in spring 2020 due to the pandemic. The process was nearly seamless for us.
The office operates with a total of 51 indeterminate positions. Most of the office's resources are dedicated to our primary goal, helping regulatees meet their obligations under the act and code. These resources are not just in our advisory and compliance division, although this is where almost one-third of our employees work, including your advisers, but it's also located within the communications group that provides educational documents and develops presentations for regulatees.
We also have a legal services and investigations division, which offers the legal opinions we rely on and, of course, conducts investigations. Finally, our corporate management division handles blind trusts, in addition, of course, to providing us with all the HR, information technology and financial support that we need.
In the past two years—and I use two years because I haven't been before this committee since May 2019—the number of reporting public office holders has increased by 7%. The office helps them, as well as the MPs, as well as the other public office holders. We have a total group of about 3,200 people we serve. In the vast majority of situations, we help them through email and telephone. This was the case already before the pandemic, so that's why it was relatively easy for us to switch to that mode when the pandemic hit.
Requests for presentations have dropped obviously because, of course, the pandemic has caused people to focus on their real delivery priorities, so we've had fewer presentations given in the last fiscal year. However, requests for advice were up through the pandemic, particularly in the last two quarters. We have already revised the presentations and have placed the focus recently on very specific, high-interest subject matters, such as recusals, outside activities and post-employment, that appear to reflect the most concerns for regulatees.
I had a session on recusals a few months ago, which was very well attended by over 300 [Technical difficulty—Editor]. On June 8 and June 16, I have already invited all the reporting [Technical difficulty—Editor] holders to a session on offers of outside employment and post-employment obligations.
Requests from the public for information have also increased 27% over the last fiscal year. There has been a steady interest from the media in the work of our office. Given the restrictions placed upon me by the act, we've worked hard to ensure that we are as open and transparent as possible with both the public and the media. Our approach has included more active use of Twitter to share information and updates. We have over 3,000 Twitter followers at this point in time. Last year we increased by 52% the number of tweets that we sent out in order to be of interest to our followers.
Since I was last before you, I have issued nine investigation reports under the act, and four under the code. We've always been able to complete our analyses and conclusions in less than one year, which was one of my initial goals when I was appointed back in early 2018. I set out this goal to complete—unless it was exceptionally complex or unless there were exceptional circumstances—any study, any review and examination that we do under the code or the act within one year. We've managed to do that in the 13 reports issued in the last two years, and 18 since I've been in my position in January 2018.
I hope you will share my view that we have produced quality work each time.
I'm here today, and I'm pleased to let you know that we currently have no investigations ongoing under the act—no backlog. Therefore, we're ready to accept the next complaint or the next situation where I have reasonable grounds to start an investigation. We have a couple still ongoing under the code. In fact, I'll be tabling a report before the House rises as a result of an investigation under the code.
We receive a fair volume of complaints and information, if you wish, from the public, from the media, so we've reviewed over 100 files, 100 situations, where my staff reviewed incoming information to determine whether we should investigate. There is a good flow of information that comes in all the time.
I will now talk about the budget, since that is what brings us here today.
This year, we are operating with a budget of $7.67 million. That represents an increase of about 2% over last year. That is what I requested. Last year, we also secured funding for three additional communications advisor positions and to keep our information technology system up to date. Since the office was created 14 years ago, the budget has grown by about $1.6 million over the original budget.
Let's talk a little about the pandemic. Obviously, that is what's on everyone's mind; as we heard earlier before the meeting started, the patios are opening tonight.
The pandemic hit us suddenly, as it did everyone else. Personally, I had a medical condition two or three years ago that made me more vulnerable. So I remember very well leaving the office not knowing, like all of you, when I was going to come back and how. We all thought it would be a few weeks. However, we had to take steps gradually.
We were lucky, because our employees already had tablets and could work from home. In addition to our policy to provide equipment in a controlled manner to facilitate telework while ensuring ergonomics, we took steps with each employee regarding Wi-Fi availability. For 51 employees, supplies cost $28,000, from equipment to paper, pencils, and so on. Those costs were offset by decreases in other costs, such as printing. We have saved a lot of paper and a lot of trees. We also achieved significant savings on mail-outs.
In general, employees really like being able to telework. So we have a positive workplace. We use technology, as Parliament has, to keep channels open and have a constant dialogue with employees.
All this work, of course, has been accomplished because of the 50 people who work with me, who have been very good throughout the pandemic.
We did not actually measure productivity, because we have no backlog, in any respect, anywhere in the organization. We've been able to cope with the volume of work in spite of the pandemic, while trying to minimize problems and help employees as much as possible vis-à-vis the maintenance of a good balance and a good mental health situation.
That's what I have this afternoon. I would be pleased, of course, to answer any questions that members might have.
View David Lametti Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon.
I wish to acknowledge that I'm speaking to you today from Ottawa on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the invitation to appear before you to discuss the charter statement that was tabled for Bill C-10, as well as the explanatory document requested for the proposed amendments now before the committee.
As you can see, I'm appearing alongside Minister Guilbeault, who is the minister responsible for Bill C-10. I am accompanied by officials from my department.
I want to begin by discussing the duty I have under the law, as Minister of Justice, to prepare statements regarding the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for government bills introduced in the House of Commons.
I will discuss the purpose of charter statements and provide the context, including their history. I will explain what charter statements are meant to do and not do.
I will also gladly speak to the charter statement tabled in relation to Bill C-10, as well as the explanatory document provided to the committee concerning the potential effects of the proposed amendments on freedom of expression.
I should note at the outset that it is not my role as Minister of Justice and Attorney General to give legal advice to parliamentary committees. You have access to your own legal counsel and independent witnesses.
As you are aware, however, I do have obligations under the Department of Justice Act in terms of reviewing proposed government bills for inconsistency with the charter and preparing charter statements for government bills. This obligation was created by our government to be open and transparent with Canadians about the charter considerations of our legislation.
These two sets of obligations—examining bills and preparing charter statements—are both focused on the bill as tabled.
Section 4.2 of the Department of Justice Act requires the Minister of Justice to ensure that a charter statement is tabled in the House of Commons for every government bill. That obligation came into force in December 2019.
Examining bills for potential inconsistency with the charter, as set out in section 4.1, is one of my most important responsibilities. Rest assured that I also take very seriously the obligation to ensure charter statements are tabled in the House, as set out in section 4.2.
Now I will turn to the purpose of charter statements.
Charter statements are intended to inform parliamentary and public debate on a government bill. They foster transparency regarding the effects of a government bill on the fundamental values protected by the charter. They provide parliamentarians with additional information to further inform the important legislative debates they have on behalf of Canadians. Charter statements also provide Canadians with additional information to help them participate in these debates through their elected representatives.
The obligation to table charter statements is a testament to our government's commitment to respect and uphold the charter, as an integral part of the country's good governance.
We can never abdicate our responsibility as a government to ensure that our decisions—including those reflected in the reform of an act—respect our fundamental rights and freedoms. Section 4.2 of the Department of Justice Act strengthens the obligation this government and future governments have to respect this most basic of requirements.
I would like to take a few moments to explain the content of charter statements. In keeping with their purpose, charter statements are drafted at a high level. They set out in an accessible way the potential effects a bill may have on the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the charter. Charter statements also explain considerations that support the constitutionality of a bill.
In our discussion of the charter, it is also important to stress that, when Parliament legislates, it may have an effect on charter rights and freedoms. This may include limiting people's enjoyment or exercise when it is in the broader public interest to do so. This is entirely legitimate. The rights and freedoms guaranteed in the charter are not absolute, but rather subject to reasonable limits, as long as those limits can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
This means that, when identifying the potential effect of a bill that could limit a right or a freedom, it may also be necessary to consider whether the limit is reasonable and justified. A charter statement may therefore outline considerations relevant to the potential justifiability of a bill.
The fact that charter rights and freedoms can be limited, however, is not a licence to violate them. Rather, it is a reminder that any legislative limits to rights and freedoms must be carefully considered in the context of the shared values of Canada's unique, free and democratic society.
As parliamentarians, it is our responsibility to discuss and debate potential effects on charter guarantees. We exercise our judgment on behalf of Canadians as to whether proposed legislation strikes the right balance between rights and freedoms and the broader public interest. Charter statements are one more source of information to add to our deliberations.
I would also like to take a moment to explain what a charter statement is not.
A charter statement is not a legal opinion. It does not provide a comprehensive analysis of the constitutionality of a bill.
As I mentioned, a charter statement provides Parliament and the public with legal information relating to the possible effects of a bill on the rights guaranteed by the charter and to the considerations that support the consistency of the bill with the charter.
As we all know, bills often change when they are being considered by Parliament. A charter statement reflects the bill at the time it was introduced by the government in the House of Commons. Section 4.2 of the Department of Justice Act does not require that charter statements be updated as a bill progresses through Parliament.
Keeping that in mind, I will now turn to the proposed amendments to Bill C-10 in relation to social media, which are before the committee.
My fellow minister Mr. Guilbeault talked about the scope of the proposed amendments. He highlighted the key objectives underlying the amendments and discussed their intended effects on social media services and users.
In short, the proposed amendments are intended to empower the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission to regulate a social media service in respect of programs uploaded by its unaffiliated users, strictly in relation to the following: payment of regulatory charges, such as to support the creation of Canadian programming; discoverability of Canadian creators; registration of the service; provision of information; and auditing of records.
In keeping with my obligations under the Department of Justice Act, I tabled a charter statement for Bill C-10 in the House of Commons on November 18, 2020. The charter statement for Bill C-10 identifies the rights and freedoms that may potentially be engaged by the bill, and relevant considerations that support the bill's consistency with the charter.
In considering the committee's recent discussions focusing on the impacts of the proposed amendments on social media, I understand there has been extensive debate on freedom of expression.
We have prepared and shared with you an explanatory document that examines the amendments, and discusses their potential effect on the right to freedom of expression in section 2(b) of the charter. I'm confident that these considerations support the charter consistency of the bill, and that they remain as outlined in the charter statement. It is our position that the bill, as tabled, and these proposed amendments are consistent with the charter.
As the charter statement indicates, the bill's regulatory requirements have the potential to engage freedom of expression in section 2(b) of the charter. The following considerations support the continued consistency of the proposed regulatory requirements of section 2(b).
By virtue of clause 1, which would remain in the bill, unaffiliated users of social media services would not be subject to broadcasting regulation in respect of the programs they post. What remains is an updating of the CRTC's regulatory powers, and providing it with new powers applicable to online service. The bill maintains the CRTC's role and flexibility at determining what, if any, regulatory requirements to impose on broadcasting undertakings.
Regarding the proposal to give the CRTC new limited powers to regulate an online undertaking that provides the social media service in respect of programs posted by unaffiliated users, the relevant charter considerations include the CRTC's discretionary role and flexibility.
The proposed narrowing of the CRTC's discretionary powers to regulate its social media service in respect of programs posted by unaffiliated users, to only discrete members that I have mentioned, is an additional consideration. The CRTC is subject to the charter, and must exercise any discretionary powers it has in a manner that is consistent with the charter.
The act states that it must be interpreted and applied in a manner consistent with freedom of expression. The CRTC's decisions on matters of law or jurisdiction are subject to review by the Federal Court of Appeal.
In my view, the relevant considerations that are set out in the charter statement remain valid. These considerations are not impacted by the proposed amendments.
Once again, thank you for the opportunity to address the committee today.
I am at your disposal to answer questions.
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Minister, would you agree that the charter statement carefully considers that the CRTC, in making any regulations on the discoverability issue, including with respect to algorithms, would have to respect the charter, including section 2(b), as opposed to the social media companies themselves, which do not have to respect the charter in their use of algorithms?
View David Lametti Profile
Lib. (QC)
Both the charter statement and the explanatory document took into account all of the various changes that went into the act, and we have concluded that there wasn't a change to the original conclusion of the charter statement.
If you would like a more precise answer on the content of the actual act, I will turn the floor over to Minister Guilbeault, who is responsible for explaining and defending the bill.
Michael Geist
View Michael Geist Profile
Michael Geist
2021-05-17 14:39
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
As you know, my name is Michael Geist. I appear in a personal capacity, representing only my own views. I always start with that statement, but it feels particularly necessary in this instance, given the misinformation and conspiracy theories that some have floated and that Minister Guilbeault has disappointingly retweeted.
As I am sure you are aware, I have been quite critical of Bill C-10. I would like to reiterate that criticism of the bill is not criticism of public support for culture or of regulation of technology companies. I think public support for culture is needed, and I think there are ways to ensure money for creator programs this year and not in five years, as in this bill.
Further, I am puzzled and discouraged by the lack of interest in Bill C-11, which would move toward modernizing Canada’s privacy rules to help address concerns about how these companies collect and use our data. The bill would also mandate algorithmic transparency, which is much needed and far different from government-mandated algorithmic outcomes.
I’ll confine my opening remarks to the charter-related questions and widespread concerns about the regulation of user-generated content, but would welcome questions on any aspect of the bill.
There is simply no debating that following the removal of proposed section 4.1, the bill now applies to user-generated content, since all audiovisual content is treated as a program under the act. You have heard experts say that and department officials say that. The attempts to deflect from that simple reality by pointing to proposed section 2.1 to argue that users are not regulated is deceptive and does not speak to the issue of regulating the content of users.
I will speak to the freedom of expression implications in a moment, but I want to pause to note that no one, literally no other country, uses broadcast regulation to regulate user-generated content in this way. There are good reasons that all other countries reject this approach. It is not that they don’t love their creators and want to avoid regulating Internet companies; it is that regulating user-generated content in this manner is entirely unworkable, a risk to net neutrality and a threat to freedom of expression. For example, the European Union, which is not shy about regulation, distinguishes between streaming services such as Netflix and video-sharing services such as TikTok or YouTube, with no equivalent regulations such as those found in Bill C-10 for user-generated content.
From a charter perspective, the statement issued by the Department of Justice last week simply does not contain analysis or discussion about how the regulation of user-generated content as a program intersects with the charter. There is similarly no discussion about whether this might constitute a violation that could be justified, no discussion on the implications of deprioritizing speech, no discussion on the use of terms such as “social media service” that are not even defined in the bill, and no discussion of the implementation issues that could require Canadians to disclose personal location-based information in order to comply with the new, ill-defined requirements.
In my view, the prioritization or deprioritization of speech by the government through the CRTC necessarily implicates freedom of expression. The charter statement should have acknowledged this reality and grappled with the question of whether it is saved by section 1. I do not believe it is.
First, the bill as drafted, with section 4.1 in it, was the attempt to minimally impair those speech rights. With it removed, the bill no longer does so.
Second, the discoverability policy objective is not enough to save the impairment of free speech rights. There is no evidence that there is a discoverability problem with user-generated content.
Ms. Yale’s panel, which notably appears to have lost its unanimity, recommended discoverability but cited no relevant evidence to support claims that there is an issue with user-generated content.
Third, the objective of making YouTube pay some additional amount to support music creation is not enough to save the impairment of free speech rights either. This isn’t about compensation, because the works are already licensed. This is about paying some additional fees, given concerns that section 4.1 would have broadly exempted YouTube. I am not convinced that was the case, as services such as YouTube Music Premium might well have been captured. I am not alone on that. Canadian Heritage officials thought so too in a memo they wrote to the minister. In fact, it was such a non-issue that Mr. Cash’s organization did not even specifically cite the provision or raise the issue in the brief that it submitted to this committee.
I find it remarkable that the minister and the charter statement effectively tell Canadians that they should trust the CRTC to appropriately address free speech rights but are unwilling to do the same with respect to how section 4.1 would be interpreted.
Let me conclude by noting that if a choice must be made between some additional payments by a streaming service and regulating the free speech rights of Canadians, I would have thought that standing behind freedom of expression would be an easy choice to make, and I have been genuinely shaken to find that my government thinks otherwise.
I look forward to your questions.
View Marci Ien Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Marci Ien Profile
2021-05-17 15:42
Thank you, Ms. Yale.
I have another question for you. Dr. Geist has said that with the removal of proposed section 4.1, the bill now threatens user-generated content and freedom of speech. In your expert opinion, what would you say to those Canadian citizens who are concerned about that?
Janet Yale
View Janet Yale Profile
Janet Yale
2021-05-17 15:42
First I would say that there is nothing in the bill as amended, with the exclusion of proposed section 4.1, that threatens free speech.
I've tried to make it clear in my comments thus far in this meeting that users put content on, say, a social media platform. For sure that content may be under the legal definition of a “program”, but as I've said before, programs aren't regulated, so if you are a blogger or someone who makes podcasts, that's content for sure, but how is it distributed? It's distributed because you do an arrangement with Spotify or you do an arrangement with YouTube, and it's carried on those platforms.
The platforms are the online undertakings that would be regulated, not the creators of the content, whether they're users or whether they're amateurs or professionals. You are free to put up anything you want, whether you monetize it or not, whether you get advertising or subscription revenues or not. It's not covered by Bill C-10. It's the online undertakings that are, and users are not operating online undertakings. They're not regulated.
In my view, there is no threat to freedom of speech, freedom of expression or the ability to put out anything you want on any platform you like without fear that your content could be moderated or regulated in any way.
View Tim Louis Profile
Lib. (ON)
I appreciate your saying that. I appreciate your bringing up playlists, because, as an artist, I understand how Canadian artists face challenges in competing with American conglomerates and resources. The Broadcasting Act has always ensured that Canadian artists have the resources to grow to become visible locally, nationally and internationally. I feel that when Canadians go online—for example, on YouTube or someplace that has a playlist—they have a hard time discovering any Canadian artists on these platforms. That's a concern for me. I know it's a concern for our Canadian artists and the whole culture sector. Our artists are the voices of Canadians. I don't think that those online should be solely exposed to American culture.
You have written, “As originally drafted, the Bill left open the possibility that some platforms, such as YouTube, might be able to avoid its obligations to make appropriate contributions. That oversight has now been remedied and we welcome that correction.”
Could you explain your comments in more detail? It's around proposed section 4.1, that balance between supporting our artists and protecting our own free speech.
View Martin Shields Profile
CPC (AB)
View Martin Shields Profile
2021-05-17 16:10
Thank you. I appreciate that.
I'm going to Mr. Geist. You just heard that Ms. Yale backs all 97 of the recommendations, including one that I find to be divisive: that members of the CRTC would be recommended to live in the national capital region, which I find problematic.
Going beyond that, The Social Dilemma is a documentary out there that many have seen, including my granddaughter. She's very sharp—of course, all our grandkids are smart—and we discussed this particular bill. She is very savvy in technology. She understands how algorithms work and how they direct her from her past listening and what she does. What she objects to is the government's involvement in doing this; she very much does. This is a very sharp young person who objects to the government playing this role. She understands the private sector and their algorithms and how it affects her.
Mr. Geist, you talked about the dollars. We've had members saying that this is an emergency. You've described how we can get dollars, too. I think that's the house-burning idea. How do we get dollars out?
With regard to the dollar item and what other people have said about the Australian model, would you like to respond to that? How do we get there? How is Australia doing it?
Michael Geist
View Michael Geist Profile
Michael Geist
2021-05-17 16:11
Certainly I highlight some of that on the newspaper issues that Australia has moved forward on, but to focus specifically on the issue you raised about the algorithms, which I think is important, I will say that there's no question that there are concerns. Anyone who's seen some of the movies around social media comes away, I think, rightly concerned about some of these algorithms.
However, this bill is not a bill that addresses that issue. In fact, it substitutes, in some ways, the government's choices for the companies' choices. What we need instead is more algorithmic transparency on that issue.
This notion that somehow one of the problems we have to solve is discoverability.... You know, we've heard it several times. I must say two things.
First, Ms. Yale talked, as we heard, cross-country with a lot of people. They weren't able to come up with any evidence—zero—that there is a discoverability issue with user-generated content. There were no studies that cited that this is a problem. I'm sometimes left in this discussion wondering if people actually use these services. If you want to find Canadian content on Netflix, type in “Canada” or “Canadian”. If you don't think that there are Canadian playlists on Spotify, then perhaps you haven't used Spotify, with all due respect. There are numerous choices for precisely this kind of content.
That's not to suggest that we can't do better. However, to somehow think that what we need to do is take all the user-generated content, find some mechanism to categorize it as Canadian, and then have the government make choices about what gets prioritized or not is foolhardy. That's precisely the reason there is no one else on the planet who does it.
View Martin Shields Profile
CPC (AB)
View Martin Shields Profile
2021-05-17 16:13
You say “no one else on the planet”, and you've repeated that a number of times, and we've heard it before. Do you hear anybody else even talking about or reacting to the idea of what Canada is attempting to do?
Michael Geist
View Michael Geist Profile
Michael Geist
2021-05-17 16:13
I think there are significant risks with what we're proceeding towards. What this bill will do, when you get foreign services looking at Canada.... Obviously some of the big players already here aren't going to go anywhere, but some of the other services that are outside of the jurisdiction may look at some of these regulations and at the costs and say that we are going to block Canadian users from the marketplace.
Think of a service such as Molotov, a French-language service that is serving a whole series of French-language African countries. It's not available in Canada right now. Are they going to come into Canada if they face these kinds of regulations? There are India-based services that are the same, Korea-based services that are the same. This is going to hit our multicultural communities particularly hard, as services that might otherwise make themselves available within Canada will look at the costs, look at what we've already heard are clear obligations that they will face under these rules, and say that they're simply not going to operate in the Canadian market.
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's been a pleasure to listen to the witnesses today and to the vibrant debate.
I also want to say that some people have been heralded as champions of freedom of expression. I believe each and every one of the witnesses is a champion of freedom of expression, as are Canadian artists and as are all of the members of the committee. We are all devoted to and care about freedom of expression.
I would point out that at the meeting we had with Department of Justice officials and Minister Guilbeault last week, I was the only member who asked about whether or not there was interplay with section 1 and section 2(b) of the charter when it came to discoverability, which is one of the issues that was raised today by Dr. Geist.
I want to walk through with Maître Yale—as I'm going to call her because I'm from Quebec—a couple of the issues that I have, as questions.
We're going to start from the premise that I think we all agree that users are not governed by proposed new section 2.1. The users themselves are not governed. If a user's content is governed, it's solely governed through the online undertaking, which would be governed to a lesser extent in very specific ways, provided that Ms. Dabrusin's amendment is adopted by the committee.
Those specific ways would be, number one, that they would have to disclose their revenues in Canada. I can't imagine that this would be a freedom of expression issue. Number two, they would be required to contribute to Canadian culture. I can't imagine that this would be a freedom of expression issue. The only freedom of expression issue, in my view, could lie with a third factor, which is discoverability, which is the only other thing that could be regulated if Ms. Dabrusin's amendment is adopted.
Maître Yale, would it be true, in your perspective right now, that online undertakings such as social media platforms—and I will use Facebook as an example—can actually censor the content of user posts based on their own documented rules and regulations?
Janet Yale
View Janet Yale Profile
Janet Yale
2021-05-17 16:17
I think we have to be careful about what we mean when we think of social media platforms and the ability of these large tech platforms to intervene in content. If there is content that they consider illegal, they do today monitor content. I think it's a bit of a fiction to suggest that there is no regulation of content online. These undertakings self-regulate, because there are no rules of the game. They are thus quite vigilant—
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
I wasn't arguing that; I was actually arguing the contrary. I was saying that beyond illegal content, social media providers will frequently say that certain things cannot be posted that are racist but that are not illegal and not hate speech. Their actual rules go beyond just legality. Isn't that correct?
Results: 16 - 30 of 546 | Page: 2 of 37

|<
<
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data