Information & Ethics Committee on May 2nd, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, sir.

Mr. Fisher, you have three minutes.

Then we're going to have to cut it down to two minutes each, Monsieur Villemure and Mr. Green, because we have members who need to prepare for non-answer period.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Fisher, go ahead.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to our witnesses.

I'm really concerned about the increasing prevalence and dangers of political leaders and politicians who themselves participate and feed into the machine of online disinformation and conspiracy theories.

Mr. Finkelstein, I'll ask you two quick questions. There is a very short amount of time, but if there is any spare time, we'll go to Mr. Khanna.

How can politicians and people in the public sphere protect themselves against potential threats and violence driven by online information?

What responsibility do politicians have to ensure that they're not fanning the flames that lead to potential threats and real-world danger?

[Joel Finkelstein]

I would say that the way that we can shore up resilience in the face of information threats is about the creation of transparency wherever that's possible. We need lawmakers who work towards creating greater transparency in their decision-making processes with the data that they're using to make decisions and showcasing that so that how you come to this conclusion is evident for anyone who wants to see it. Getting better data and being responsible about being a steward of data so you can become better informed is important. Doing more of that is the key to earning trust in this age. People may disagree with you, but if what they find when they penetrate is that they have good reason to understand that you're making a good-faith effort, it forgives a lot.

Going back to what Mr. Green said about ideological differences, I'm not talking about the BLM movement. We found out that the violence that took place in the summer was statistically and geographically of a different set of parameters than the BLM mobilizations themselves. These were a fringe group of anti-government activists and anti-police activists who were espousing not just anti-police ideas. It's okay to not think that policing is good and needs reform, but these were people who were calling for complete revolution and the murder of officials. It's those people to whom we need to be able to say, “Hey, I agree with you that we need more social justice, and I agree with you that racism is bad, but this part of it I'm not in for”. Being able to make those distinctions is really important, because we don't want to create hostility around the basis of the belief that somebody is more polarized than they really are.

When we drill down into it, it's amazing how much we have in common. That's the hidden truth that comes out beyond the social media and the hype. It's amazing how much consensus there is.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Finkelstein.

Mr. Khanna, do you want to touch on that?

[Sanjay Khanna]

In the end, I think to some extent this goes back to how we debate very tough issues and what example we set on resolving conflicts and setting policy agendas. The children are watching, the youth are watching, and this is also what the fuel is for dis- and misinformation, particularly from state and non-state actors that want to influence us. If they were looking at certain divisions that they can exploit within the House of Commons, they will work hard to do that, and that's what I'm most worried about.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, sir.

Now it's over to Mr. Villemure for two minutes.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a very simple question, Mr. Finkelstein. We've talked a lot about platforms and social media, but looking beyond that, I'd like to know what role companies like Palantir play in disinformation.

[Joel Finkelstein]

You might be asking one of two things. You might be asking what role private companies have in creating more resilience against this information, or you might be asking if it is possible that companies that are expert in disinformation go out of bounds and create problems?

Which one of those questions are you asking?

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

The second one.

[Joel Finkelstein]

This is something that we have dealt with in a very high-profile way with other organizations that are in the disinformation space. Disinformation is a word I tend not to like, because I think people have different opinions of what is and isn't disinformation that are polarizing.

We have called out in very high-profile cases the affiliations between “disinformation” groups and people who have revolutionary and anti-government ideologies. On the front page of the L.A. Times, we have been on the record speaking about that problem.

My sense is that there is a challenge you have with private groups, but oftentimes those groups will lose credibility. What happens is, when you do play into an ideological game, people can tell that. You'll know that's true because you'll have one side of the party pick their disinformation expert, and you'll have the other side of the party pick their disinformation expert. Now you have competing experts who are saying, “You're the disinformation agent”, or, “No, you're the disinformation agent”. Again, this is part of the signal that we need to be promoting.

We just got a $4-million grant at Rutgers University to create a civic infrastructure to promote positive messages about civility online with these tools.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you.

[Joel Finkelstein]

How do we create forward messages that promote democratic values, not just playing “gotcha” but promoting the democratic values that people need to engage in as a solution to the problems they have?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, sir.

Mr. Green, you have two minutes. Go ahead.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

I want to shift from digital disinformation to the traditional analog disinformation and the ways in which information is perpetrated that fuel the atrocities being committed around the world.

I referenced the quoting of President Joe Biden about 40 beheaded babies. It's just this horrible, atrocious dehumanization in the pretext to the incursions into Erez and other places.

Without having to get into specificity about that, can each of you just comment briefly on the ways in which traditional analog channels for misinformation and disinformation are also part of an ecosystem that are then catapulted into the universe online and in other spaces?

Mr. Khanna, perhaps you can start, followed by Mr. Finkelstein.

[Sanjay Khanna]

I don't have a lot to say about that except to note that the integrated approaches are the most effective. If you see something online and then you see an analog in the real world that confirms that opinion, or it's suggested to you that things in the actual physical world based on an online campaign are reflecting your beliefs online, then that's going to be another vector and a confirmation in physical space for some potentially pretty malign opinions. What I think is interesting is how sophisticated people are about looking at that confluence.

I'll now hand it over to Dr. Finkelstein.

[Joel Finkelstein]

You know, when I teach my students about this, I call it “atrocity pornography”—there's a way in which you're seeking confirmation for pre-existing biases. Why do people do that? People did that long before social media, and the reason they do that is uncertainty. When you're faced with uncertainty, it matters a lot less what the truth is, and it matters a lot more what mob you're with. The thing about mobs is that they're very effective at creating the truth on the ground: “Who cares about what the truth is? My mob and I will tell you what the truth is.”

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Just for the purpose of the study, can you quickly define “mob” before my time runs out?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Your time has run out, but I'm going to allow him to define that.

Please go ahead.

[Joel Finkelstein]

Psychologically speaking, a mob is a mass of people who are policing moral uniformity and policing in-group loyalty and loyalty to authority at the expense of critical thinking. In order to police specific outcomes in the world, it often involves a punitive orientation towards people whom you disagree with as part of the psychological characteristic of both left-wing and right-wing authoritarianism. Those are the psychological features of mobs.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you. That is very helpful. I'm looking forward to the podcast.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

That concludes the panel for today.

Mr. Khanna, thank you for being here, sir. Mr. Finkelstein, thank you so much for participating today. We really appreciated the information both before and during the meeting. I'm going to dismiss our witnesses.

There is one order of business that we need to take care of, and that's the study budget. The budget for this study is in the amount of $11,500 and includes the usual witness costs, plus headsets and other things.

Do I have unanimous consent for the study budget? Thank you for that.

Thanks to the clerk, our technicians and our analysts today. This was a fascinating panel, and I want to thank you again for being here.

The other thing I will discuss is that, because we had Mr. Khanna come in, I'm going to attempt to have Mr. Nimmo come back because I think he adds a lot of value to this discussion.

Have a great weekend, everyone. We'll see you next week.

The meeting is adjourned.