Tepid Criticism of Youth Social Media Ban Obscures Fundamental Issues
Safety of youth and designation of what is hate content omitted entirely
This week, the federal Liberals tabled Bill C-34, a bill to regulate digital tech by introducing band-aid measures to social media and AI companies. The most important and headline grabbing part of this bill was the measure forcing social media companies to block access to their products for those under 16.
The federal government has been toying with this idea of age verification for some time. In 2020, the Senate completed a third reading of S-203, a bill that would require age-verification ID in order to access "sexually explicit material" online. The bill itself was stopped before the 2021 election, but the goal has continued. Now, almost two years after Australia passed a social media ban for those under 16 years old, Canada intends to follow in their footsteps.
To begin with a rare positive example of coverage on the bill, Global News' headline reads "Ottawa unveils plan to ban social media for youth — but not AI chatbots."
The official description of the bill describes seven types of harmful content that will be targeted by measures in the act. They can be separated into two broad sections: child and non-consensual content and content that aims to spread hatred and violence. Social media platforms would be subject to "A Duty to Make Certain Content Inaccessible" and "A Duty to Act Responsibly." AI chatbots get their own version of these principles that include emergency measures and mitigation of risk in harmful content and behaviour. The mechanism for which this and the age verification will be enforced is sketchy. At most, a newly created Digital Safety Commission of Canada to "Enforce legislative and regulatory obligations and hold regulated services accountable for their responsibilities..."
The timeframe on this barebones legislation is not encouraging. On the same day that Canada's privacy commissioner released a report that Grok broke Canadian law and created over 6,000 non-consensual deepfakes per hour (mostly targeting women and children), this new commission is estimated to take up to 18 months to form. There is no word on what, if any, consequences xAI will face as a result of this investigation, or if the new commission will consider action.
A fine of $10 million or three percent of the company's gross global revenue is planned for punishment regarding each violation. But the stark reality of this bill is that it downloads responsibility of enforcement to the very companies allowing, perpetuating and profiting off of this harmful content.
At most, criticism in these articles focuses on privacy concerns. This is a valid avenue of critique. Private companies using verification of government documents allows third-parties access to the government ID of Canadians. It also gives a great deal of freedom to the companies in how they would implement it. So to say there is a general acceptance of the bill is not accurate.
Scott Martin
As mentioned, at least Sean Boynton at Global News indicates there is no blanket ban for AI chatbots like in social media. Despite the overwhelming criticism of how AI is used. One could chalk this up to Mark Carney's overzealous love for the AI industry. Additionally, while it is not directly criticized, the decision to make social media companies responsible for their own regulation is continually frontloaded in these articles.
However, there are two big problems that are not mentioned in most coverage of the bill. The first, which seems entirely absent, is that a large portion of youth find important community in social media platforms. Take queer youth as an example. During a time when trans rights are under a systemic attack both domestically and internationally, removing an avenue for queer youth to connect with support networks is extremely dangerous. Approximately 25 per cent of homeless youth identify as 2SLGBTQ, compared to five to 10 per cent of all youth. With less community support, these kids will face harsher conditions. The fact this is not mentioned at all in the reporting is egregious.
Second, and just as worrying, is the intent of the bill to target content that "foments hatred... incites violence" and constitutes "terrorism or violent extremism." To be clear, these are important areas that need addressing. But when X and Grok owner Elon Musk spurs racist pogroms without any consequence, while the Canadian government lists the Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network as an official terrorist entity for its stance that "Israel and Zionism are the greatest danger to the Middle East and the world," caution must be applied. Indeed, Musk's control of X has led to a general promotion of white supremacist accounts and content. Will Musk face consequences for this?
It would be unfair to say that news coverage of this bill has not included criticism. However, what little is offered narrows the scope of what this legislation will end result in. In short, it puts most of the responsibility on the companies themselves, provides little information in how penalty enforcement will be conducted, leaves out bans on AI chatbots, introduces complex privacy concerns, endangers youth and raises concern about free speech.
Filling these gaps in reporting would provide a fuller, more comprehensive picture of this legislation. More meaningful measures like targeting the companies themselves, building national alternatives and more critical education of these services are lacking. With this bill, Carney's government has cemented that they are less interested in how to mitigate these harms. Rather, they are more concerned about how to mollify a public that is increasingly concerned with the dominance of big tech, while providing little actual improvements.
