Canadian Heritage Committee on Nov. 28th, 2023

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Welcome to meeting number 101 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

Today's meeting is taking place in the hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

I would like to take this opportunity to once again remind everyone that we can't have screenshots or photos taken of your screen. It's simply not permitted.

We have witnesses on the tech giants in today, and we have three on Zoom and one in person. As an individual, we have Jean-Hugues Roy, professor, École des médias, from UQAM in Montreal. From the Center for Countering Digital Hate, we have Imran Ahmed, the chief executive officer; and from Digital Content Next, we have Jason Kint, the chief executive officer. All three witnesses are here virtually. In person, as you can see in the room, is Michael Geist, Canada research chair in Internet and e-commerce law, University of Ottawa.

We have five-minute statements, and we'll start with Jean-Hugues Roy, the professor from UQAM, the Université du Québec à Montréal.

Sir, you have five minutes to address the Canadian heritage meeting here this morning. Go ahead, please.

You're either on mute or we have a problem. I thought we ended these problems two years ago, but I don't know. I was here in the room when you were successful with your sound check, so let me just check on it once again.

Mr. Roy, we can't hear you. We're going to go to the next speaker, and we'll get back to you in a minute.

From the Center for Countering Digital Hate, Mr. Ahmed, the chief executive officer, is up for five minutes.

Thank you.

[Imran Ahmed, Chief Executive Officer, Center for Countering Digital Hate]

Mr. Chair and members of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you all today.

I am Imran Ahmed, the founder and chief executive of the Center for Countering Digital Hate. I am here to speak about the role that tech giants play in our information ecosystem, how the design and business model of their platforms increases the prevalence of disinformation and hate speech, and how they behave in response to democratically enhanced oversight—enacted oversight in regulation.

Social media companies are not, despite their vital role in public discourse, in the business of free speech. They are motivated by money and make that money by selling advertising space on the back of content that news publishers and platform users create for them for free. Meta and the other platforms do not want editorial responsibility for the content on their platforms—for liability and financial reasons—because content moderation and editorial control require lots of resources.

However, in blocking the sharing of news posts in Canada, Meta is proving that they've always had editorial power and will use it indiscriminately if content threatens their all-important bottom line. Meta's decision to block Canadian news shows that this company, and others like it, only take responsibility for the content on their platforms when it threatens their finances.

This is why the Online News Act incenses them so. Bill C-18 compels platforms to negotiate with news publishers whose content they have profited from and some of whose businesses they have destroyed.

Canada has been left in a position where Canadians cannot share news posts with their friends, family and community. This decision is nothing more than a temper tantrum by a company that has shown itself, at every opportunity, to be completely opposed to governance by democratically elected governments worldwide.

This year's Reuters digital news survey found that 27% of Canadians share news via social media and messaging. Now news has gone from Canadians' newsfeeds, so what replaces it? What content do users turn to now that reputable news outlets have been shut out?

That news vacuum—

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Chair, we're having trouble with the interpretation.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Mr. Ahmed, just hold on. We're having trouble with the French interpretation. I'm sorry about this. We'll stop the clock. You still have two minutes and 40 seconds or so to go.

We're just waiting. We've had some technical problems this morning.

Is everybody hearing the interpretation right now?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Chair, the interpreter is telling us there's some interference with another microphone.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

We're even having problems with the English interpretation now.

You said there's a mic on, and I don't see a mic on.

We will suspend for two minutes to see if we can get interpretation in both English and French.

You have about two minutes and 25 seconds left. I'm sorry for the interruption.

Go ahead with your remaining two minutes and 25 seconds.

[Imran Ahmed]

I'm sorry. It was two minutes and 40 seconds, earlier, but look, I will get through—

[Some hon members]

Oh, oh!

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Sure. It's two minutes and 40 seconds. Go ahead.

[Imran Ahmed]

I will simply get through as much as I can. You may have to bear with me a tiny bit. You have my apologies.

As I was saying, that news vacuum is being filled, and I'm here to discuss the risk that disinformation and hate speech, fuelled by these platforms' algorithms, could become the filler.

Harmful algorithms feed the spread of disinformation. The design of these algorithms prioritizes attention and engagement to maximize the number of eyeballs on and the time spent viewing advertiser content.

My organization researches the amplification of disinformation and hate speech by social media algorithms. Rather than giving people the freedom to choose their own content, algorithms apply methods such as predictive analysis to promote whatever outcome the company determines will maximize its profits.

I just want to repeat that again. Platforms' algorithms don't give you what you want. That's a myth. They give you what they want you to want.

These highly personal, highly invasive systems have resulted in the polarization of economic, democratic and social thought, and are correlated to a rise in radical hate groups, networks and extremism.

Algorithm and “recommended” systems are fundamental to technology platforms' business models. This commercial sensitivity is one reason technical information about these algorithms is so hard to obtain.

Nevertheless, we have shown, through our research, a strong relationship between algorithms and the promotion of conspiracist and hateful content and disinformation. For example, in August 2020, when Instagram added recommendations to its user experience—unsolicited content to user streams to extend their time on the platform—CCDH set out to understand what effect this design change had on the prevalence of misinformation and hate speech.

In our 2021 report on algorithms, we found evidence that this design choice actively pushed radicalizing extremists' misinformation to users. Once the user exhausted the latest content from all accounts they follow, they gave new content as an extension of their feed, identifying users' potential interests based on their data and habits. If they were looking at COVID-19 disinformation, it actually gave them QAnon and anti-Semitic disinformation. If they were looking at anti-Semitic users, they were being fed anti-vax and COVID-19 disinformation as well.

Our findings illustrate how platforms' algorithms and design choices can quickly lead users from one conspiracy into the next, from investigating questions about the efficacy of a novel vaccine to unrelated conspiracies like QAnon, electoral rigging and anti-Semitic hate.

Meta owns, controls and profits from the Instagram algorithm, which here was shown to amplify dangerous misinformation and conspiracies. That's just one example of the malignant dynamics caused by our reliance on a revenue-maximizing algorithm.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Can you wrap it up, please, Mr. Ahmed? Your time is up.

[Imran Ahmed]

Of course.

Although it is too early to test all consequences of Meta's decision to remove news content in Canada, I can see no way in which the removal of editorially accountable news and journalism could possibly improve, rather than destroy, the quality of algorithmic recommendations, or break this malignant cycle of disinformation that I described.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Thank you very much. We will move now to Mr. Roy for five minutes, please. I think we have the technical issues looked after.

The floor is yours. Go ahead.

[Jean-Hugues Roy, Professor, École des médias, Université du Québec à Montréal, As an Individual]

Thank you for inviting me to appear before the committee.

I'm going to make a preliminary observation and then suggest four recommendations.

First of all, I'm stunned to hear Meta and Google spokespersons say that information has no value for them. I would note that a French researcher, Tristan Mattelart, clearly documented Facebook's efforts, when it was starting out, to encourage the media to create their own Facebook pages. At the time, Meta/Facebook was looking for high-quality content to enhance its subscribers' experience.

Meta's CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, has regularly stated that his company's mission is to build better communities. In 2017, he specified that the communities Facebook wanted to build had to meet five criteria, one of which was to build informed communities.

Meanwhile, Google realized as early as 2001 just how valuable information could be. At the time of the September 11 attacks, Google realized that users were searching for keywords such as “World Trade Center” and “attack”, and that they couldn't find anything about the events because Google's indexing robots only visited each website once a month. So the company's engineers thought they'd better start indexing news websites much more often to meet the needs of their users. Information enriched Google's search results and has also enriched the company for over 20 years.

Now I'm going to make four recommendations regarding the Online News Act, the former Bill C‑18. We now realize that it perhaps wasn't the best approach. I would encourage you legislators to trust in your role as parliamentarians to avoid falling victim to the intimidation tactics that the online platforms use.

My first recommendation is based on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 3 of the charter guarantees the democratic rights of Canadians. As stated on the justice department's website, “A measure that denies electors sufficient information to enable them to make an informed choice in voting may compromise the right to vote guaranteed by section 3.”

The blocking of news by Meta is, in my opinion, such a measure. The public's right to information is not expressly guaranteed by charters, but I think everyone here would agree that it's a fundamental right. Insofar as 45% of Canadians today get their information from social networks, I believe the legislator would have an argument for obliging online platforms to provide information to Canadians, or at the very least prohibiting them from blocking information of public interest to Canadians. I think that section 51 of the Online News Act is a step in this direction. It simply needs to be made retroactive.

Moving on to my second recommendation, web giants Google and Meta have both said they are ready to contribute to a fund to support journalism in Canada. That's great. Except that it will now be up to the legislator to define the amount. It could amount to a percentage of the Canadian sales of online platforms that have provided Canadians with access to information over the past 15 years. You may be wondering how we can calculate these sums if we have no financial information regarding activities on these platforms in Canada. That brings me to my third recommendation.

You're no doubt familiar with Australia's ongoing inquiry into online platforms, which is scheduled to run from 2020 to 2025. The seventh progress report from that survey was just released yesterday. When you read it, you realize that Australia requires listed multinationals to provide information to it. I'm not just talking about those on the web, but rather about all multinationals that have subsidiaries in Australia. They are required to provide Australia with detailed financial statements on their subsidiaries. Why doesn't Canada have the same tools? Give us the means to acquire that information.

My last recommendation is that we collectively give ourselves more resources. In order to protect citizens, governments have given themselves the right to see how certain companies handle food, for example. They have given themselves the right to inspect aircraft and search travellers' luggage. There are a lot of good reasons to conduct this kind of activity.

Online platforms, for all their benefits, can also have harmful effects. Insofar as they have demonstrated, over the past 12 years, their inability to mitigate these harmful effects themselves, I believe the time has come for Canada to give itself the right to inspect what information these companies possess about Canadian citizens. I'm not just talking about Meta and Google, but also about Uber, Netflix, Spotify and OpenAI.

In my opinion, while of course respecting users' privacy, Canada should give itself the right to access these companies' databases and examine their algorithms. I know that the algorithms are like the Caramilk secret, but the well-being of Canadians supersedes the commercial interests of these companies.

This right should also be accompanied by obligations for these platforms to provide, again while respecting user privacy, programming interfaces, APIs, to enable researchers like me, Mr. Geist and others in Canada, to study what's happening on these platforms, which are playing an increasing role in the lives of Canadians.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Thank you.

We'll move to our next virtual guest.

Jason Kint, chief executive officer of Digital Content Next, you have five minutes. Go ahead.

[Jason Kint, Chief Executive Officer, Digital Content Next]

Good morning. Thank you for having me, Chair.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of Digital Content Next. DCN is the only trade group exclusively focused on the future of high-quality digital content companies that manage trusted, direct relationships with consumers and advertisers.

Our members include more than 60 media companies and thousands of brands, including news organizations ranging from local to national and international, such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, the BBC, The Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Financial Times.

I last testified before this committee in 2022, ahead of the passage of the Online News Act, which DCN enthusiastically supported. We are grateful for your considerable diligence in studying the imbalance in bargaining power with Google and Facebook.

As background, I have nearly 30 years of digital media experience, including spending the first 20 running digital media businesses. During that period, I executed a number of major commercial deals with the large tech companies.

With antitrust lawsuits under way around the globe against Google and Facebook, the evidence emerging in these cases confirms what we have witnessed whenever one of these companies faces a legislative or regulatory threat to its bottom line.

Today, I'd like to open by sharing at a high level the types of intimidation brought on by the companies.

The first is threats to legislation. As you know, Australia provided a road map for this investigation, legislation and intimidation tactics around Bill C-18.

Much of the public learned about Australia's new bill when Facebook blocked users' sharing of news for five days in March 2021, just as vaccines were being rolled out. What may be less known is that Facebook's plan was to block news during the most critical week of Parliament's deliberations. A brave whistle-blower shared internal documents from The Wall Street Journal showing access at the highest level of the company before going underground for fear of identification and retaliation. Consider how much more informed lawmakers would have been if that whistle-blower hadn't been scared away from testifying.

The second is threats to investments. The public may know that Facebook significantly expanded its investment in the U.K. over the last few years, even moving a number of executives to London before shuttering its Instagram office earlier this year. Less known is what we learned through an open records request: that Mark Zuckerberg threatened to pull back investment in the U.K. at a time when its Parliament was demanding he testify about questions he never answered—to this day—including to Canada's Parliament, which went so far as to summon him.

On a related note, it made global news when the company agreed to pay $5 billion to the U.S. government to settle the matter in the States. However, what is less known is that this is the basis of an ongoing shareholder lawsuit alleging insider trading charges against Zuckerberg, and that the company overpaid to protect its CEO.

The third is threats to publishers and newsrooms. We've seen significant headlines over the years about both companies funding news projects and academic programs. Behind the scenes, the companies were able to leverage commercial relationships to suppress reporting on information considered sensitive to the companies. Those considered partners, through high-revenue programs or advanced access to new products, are understandably much more reluctant to publicly criticize the companies.

Google and Facebook also issued threats to pull out of news altogether. One example is the head of news at Facebook reportedly telling Australian publishers that they would be in “hospice” if they didn't work with Facebook.

In 2018, The Guardian and The New York Times reported on Cambridge Analytica, which is Facebook's largest-ever scandal. Again, less known is Facebook's threat to sue The Guardian a day prior to its news report, which Facebook's own head of news—and I'm quoting her, as I was sitting immediately next to her on a Financial Times conference panel—said was, “Probably not our wisest move”.

The fourth is record spending on lobbying, including through proxies. Google and Facebook registered in the top 10 lobbyists in the EU and the U.S. In addition to direct employee and campaign contributions, there is a long list of groups that champion the two companies' talking points in return for significant funding.

The fifth is that the companies intimidate consumers in order to drive outrage, including by using their dominant gateways of YouTube, search and messaging. This includes the oft-repeated claims that regulations will destroy innovation or end the free and open Internet. In each case, whether it was on new privacy laws, the EU copyright directive or Australia's news bargaining code, the Internet never broke.

Facebook often takes it a step further by suggesting it will have to charge for services or kill thousands of small businesses and millions of jobs. Mind you, the company makes tens of billions in profit per year, driven nearly entirely by ultra-high margin advertising.

As you've witnessed first-hand, these companies use various tactics in a coordinated fashion to slow down or stop any regulation that would impact their bottom line. Fortunately, their playbook is becoming more widely known and policy-makers around the globe are beginning to take action.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today. I look forward to answering any questions you may have.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Thank you, Mr. Kint.

We go now to our final person on the panel, Michael Geist, from the University of Ottawa.

Go ahead for five minutes, please, Mr. Geist.

[Dr. Michael Geist, Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning. My name is Michael Geist. I'm a law professor at the University of Ottawa, where I hold the Canada research chair in Internet and e-commerce law. I'm here in a personal capacity, representing only my own views.

I've appeared before this committee many times, yet it seems necessary to expand on my standard opening by stating that I have never been compensated or otherwise received a benefit from any tech company in conjunction with any of my appearances, submissions or statements on any legislative or regulatory issue. I don't think I should have to say this, but given the tendency of some to defame critics of Bill C-11 and Bill C-18 as shills, I should be absolutely clear that my views are not for sale.

Further, I should also be clear that criticism of Bill C-11 and Bill C-18 was not opposition to tech regulation. There are real harms, and we need regulation. I recently appeared before the INDU committee, calling for the strengthening of Bill C-27 on privacy and AI regulation. I have to say that I have spent much of my time, in the aftermath of the events of October 7, focused on the alarming rise of anti-Semitism and the urgent need for action both off-line and online, which could include the much-delayed online harms bill.

Since this study is about tech efforts to influence policy, I'll focus on that.

There have been important studies and reports that chronicle tech sector efforts to influence policy. For example, the Tech Transparency Project reported on Google-supported research. It identified many papers and work by academics with links to, or financial backing from, that company. However, the investigations identified virtually no Canadian examples. In fact, a search for any articles or reports from the project, since its inception across multiple tech companies, reveals very little involving Canada.

If we consider efforts to influence Bill C-11 and Bill C-18 through lobbyist meetings—we just heard about lobbying—one organization leads the way. It isn't Meta, which had relatively few meetings on these bills—in fact, fewer than CAB, ACTRA, CDCE or CMPA. It isn't Google, which ranked second for the meetings. Rather, the organization with the most registered lobbyist meetings on these bills is News Media Canada.

It's important to state that, if this hearing is about retribution for the blocking of news links in response to Bill C-18, I think that's misguided. Companies and many experts warned repeatedly that the legislation was deeply flawed. Now that news-link blocking has gone on for months on Facebook and Instagram without any apparent interest from that company in regulatory reform, I think that's pretty clear evidence that this is a consequence of the legislation and not a tactic to influence it. It was not a bluff, as many kept insisting. Indeed, I would argue that, frankly, both companies were pretty consistent from day one in their statements about the legislation.

In many respects—we just heard about threats to remove or stop investment—it's no different from Bell's recent announcement, in which it threatened to cut capital investment by a billion dollars in response to a CRTC wholesale Internet access ruling, or Stellantis putting its investment on hold earlier this year in Canada with the announcement of the Volkswagen deal. Simply put, legislation and regulation have consequences.

If this is actually about addressing concerns around regulatory or legislative influence, however, the real issue isn't tactics. It's regulatory capture. On that front, there is cause for concern in Canada. With Bill C-11, there was ample evidence of regulatory capture, as a handful of legacy culture groups dominated meetings with officials and time with this committee. The voices of Canadian digital creators were often dismissed or sidelined, including those from indigenous and BIPOC communities, some of whom reported feeling disrespected or intimidated by department or ministry officials.

The situation was even more pronounced with Bill C-18. Members of this committee indicated they were ready to move to clause-by-clause review without even hearing from Meta. During that review, someone stated that online news organizations were not even news. This form of regulatory capture was particularly damaging. Online news outlets were sounding the alarm over the risks of the bill and took the biggest hit with news-link blocking. They too were ignored. Some have now stopped hiring or been forced to suspend operations, yet News Media Canada somehow managed, in the span of five years, to obtain a $600-million bailout, the swift enactment of Bill C-18 and now an expansion of the labour journalism tax credit, in which their demands were met down to the last penny. Now that is influence.

Cultural policy is the bedrock of this committee, but culture isn't static. It's essential this committee and the department ensure they avoid regulatory capture and provide a forum for all voices. Failure to do so makes for bad policy and raises the risk of intimidation, in which—inadvertent or not—it may be the government, or this committee, that does some of the intimidating.

Thank you for your attention. I look forward to your questions.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Thank you, Mr. Geist.

We'll go to our first round of six minutes.

We'll start with the Conservatives and Rachael Thomas.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

My first question is for Dr. Geist. As you know, there has been a complaint filed with the Competition Bureau. The complaint was put forward by News Media Canada, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters and the CBC. The complaint has to do with Bill C-18, and the fact that Meta has determined that it is no longer carrying news links. Well before the legislation was passed, Meta made it clear that this would be the decision it would make in response to the legislation.

However, these outlets that I've just listed—or unions—are now complaining that:

By refusing to negotiate with Canadian news organizations in good faith for the access of Canadian news content on Meta’s platforms, and by blocking the news content on the platforms, Meta is denying Canadian news organizations fair compensation for their content, leaving them with limited resources to compete effectively in the news publishing market.

This last phrase here, “leaving them with limited resources to compete in the news publishing market”, would say that Meta served as a vehicle or a platform by which these news sources were being shared. That vehicle is no longer provided, and these news outlets are saying that it's hurting them.

However, the whole premise of Bill C-18 was that the news outlets were actually providing the value, and that Meta needed to pay them. It seems they're making an admission that the actual benefit was found in Meta being the vehicle.

Do you care to comment on this further or expand on it?

[Dr. Michael Geist]

Sure. As many have pointed out, the reality is that there were great benefits that came to the publishers from social media and from search. Indeed, that was the basis upon which, in many respects, this took place for a very long period of time.

Frankly, what we have seen in the aftermath of the legislation taking effect in June really confirms that. I don't think it can be understated. There is real harm with news entities talking about lost traffic in the range of 30%. There are some news outlets that have stopped their services, effectively, or suspended their operations altogether.

Notably, there has been real harm from an investment perspective in this country. I've had a number of entities come forward, saying that in the current environment, and given the way the legislation has been structured, investing in news in Canada just isn't something people are apt to do.

It has caused real harm, based on this odd conception that driving free traffic to publishers, which was clearly a value—and we now see just how much it was worth—somehow required compensation. At the end of the day, it was all about creating mandated payments for links. This is why I know that I and many others were deeply troubled by the foundational elements in the legislation.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Dr. Geist.

I want to follow up on something else you said, and it's somewhat related.

We know that the big broadcasters—Rogers, Bell and CBC—have a lot to gain from Bill C-18, potentially. However, we also know that the new up-and-coming platforms that are based online, which Ms. Hepfner referred to as not actual news outlets—and I would contend otherwise as I believe they're legitimate—are actually being hurt significantly by this legislation. To the point you raised in your opening remarks, many of them have made the determination to not hire more employees, because they know they might be put out of business, potentially, by this legislation.

In your estimation.... It's not fair to ask why. I'm sorry. I can't ask you to speculate, but I'm just curious. Could you expand a bit? Bill C-18 was put out by the minister at the time, Minister Rodriguez, as something that was meant to benefit the little guy. It was meant to benefit the local newspapers, the ethnic media, the local media sources, etc. Many of these exist online.

Why did it end up in a place where it is benefiting the big broadcasters?

[Dr. Michael Geist]

I guess I'd respond in a couple of ways.

First, it ends up benefiting primarily the large broadcasters. The Parliamentary Budget Officer tells us that 75% of the money goes to the radio and television broadcasters, largely based on the way it was structured. It went outside of the QCJO framework that we have around the labour journalism tax credit, and that ensured that broadcasters, which are dominated by a handful of large players in Canada, would be the major beneficiaries.

Personally, I think it was a mistake. At a minimum, if the goal was to support the core or what we would think of as newspapers or digital publishers, that's where the focus of the legislation ought to have been.

I think there is an answer to your question of why. I think part of the answer to the why is that many of the online news organizations weren't heard. They were oftentimes not given opportunities or when they were—whether at this committee or, frankly, at the Senate—at times they were disrespected.

I can recall that one of the largest of the independents that is operating in many Ontario communities, Village Media, appeared before the Senate. Their CEO, Jeff Elgie, was asked by Senator Harder if he was happy to see newspapers closing because then they could scoop up some of the staff and enter into these new markets.

The idea that online news entities somehow celebrate or welcome the prospect of the challenges that are being faced is such a total misread of where things are at. What we've seen in the recent months is everyone from Village Media to Narcity, to a whole range of players, basically screaming that this is causing enormous harm. They're saying that, at a minimum, surely we need some sort of deal with Google, because otherwise the effects will be catastrophic. One would hope that will ultimately lead everybody to find some kind of compromise on this.

The harm here has been very real. It was not just predictable; it was predicted.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Thank you, Mr. Geist.

We'll go now to the Liberals and Lisa Hepfner for six minutes, please.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to turn first to Mr. Ahmed, who is online.

I found your opening statement very interesting. You said that platforms like Facebook “do not want editorial responsibility”, but on the same hand they prove that they are willing to exercise that editorial responsibility by blocking access to news. You say they only take responsibility when it threatens their finances. You said it was more like a “temper tantrum” that they had.

What we've gotten in exchange is a rise in hate and extremism online.

Sir, what do you make of these arguments that we've heard so far today, that of course they've done this, that it's a business decision and that they told us they would do this, so this is what we should expect?