Information & Ethics Committee on May 2nd, 2024

[Joel Finkelstein]

I don't know about that subject specifically, because I haven't researched it, but whenever you see polarizing issues—and the trans issue, whatever else is true, is definitely an issue that I think speaks to many people in ways that are quite urgent—you always have the capacity for misrepresentation and bad-faith conflict. That creates a scheme to capture attention really on both sides of that issue, so you have a process that should be, I think, fairly sober, “medicalized”, and serious becoming something that's very highly hyper-politicized, and that's a feature of social media writ large.

So I wouldn't be surprised to find vast anti-trans campaigns parading around these places that are speaking to different adversarial groups or even other kind of hyper-ideological gender activism, on the other side, that's affiliated with revolutionary ideology and all the rest of it.

That's an example of how what should be a sober, serious conversation that is not pleasant for the people who are involved in it, I'm sure, becomes something that primarily assumes the responsibility of a public spectacle.

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

Can we assume that disinformation will become a military tool?

[Joel Finkelstein]

There's no presumption needed. This is used widely by state actors to cause disruption. I assume Mr. Nimmo is no longer here, because that's his specialty.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Well, there may be an opportunity to get him back, actually, so thank you, Mr. Finkelstein.

Thank you, Mr. Villemure.

I have Mr. Green for two and a half minutes, and then I am going to go to Mr. Viersen for three, Mr. Fisher for three, and if Mr. Villemure or Mr. Green would like a little extra time, then we can accommodate that.

Go ahead, Mr. Green, for two and a half minutes.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I've heard you say repeatedly that there's an anomalous impact by TikTok, yet I think it's fair to say that the culture wars certainly began long before the invention of TikTok, long before the invention of social media. I think culture wars have always been a primary factor used by political operatives to create wedges, to create division and to, as you pointed out, find somebody to blame. Is that fair to say?

[Joel Finkelstein]

Oh, they have been one hundred per cent, starting with the printing press, absolutely.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

The Century of the Self documentary on Edward Bernays outlined the way in which propaganda is used interchangeably between corporate interests and government interests and said that state propaganda is used universally by all state actors. Is that fair to say?

[Joel Finkelstein]

Actually, it's even worse than that. You have all probably heard of places like 4chan and 8chan, these kinds of nasty, white supremacist communities. We did an analysis of who's influencing who, Russian propaganda or 4chan. They're getting it from the kids in their basements. They're literally picking it up from the white supremacists hanging out in their basements. They're not that creative, but those kids are. And the state seizes on that and uses it.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Sure, but there are also non-state actors. Isn't that right? There are ideological movements that are religious. That is not unique to any one religion. Is that fair to say?

[Joel Finkelstein]

It is absolutely. Every religion has its fanatics.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

When dealing with these topics and when looking for solutions, would it not be responsible for us to deal with the entire structure, rather than zeroing in on one ideology or one extreme?

[Joel Finkelstein]

It's crucial. One thing that's come out in our research is a phenomena that I term “reciprocal radicalization”.

When we look at the events that occurred in the United States—the riots that occurred during the George Floyd protests and the January 6 events—we aren't really seeing two separate events. We're seeing one event.

What happened online was that we had competing memes or competing ideologies passing out disinformation about cops—that all cops are bastards—and that democracy was a failed experiment in imperialism. That was met with vigilante activity.

Those two forces—

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I would pause. I feel like you've now created a bit of a false equivalency between those. These will be ideological positions—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Green, I'm sorry, sir, but your time is up. I'm going to give you and Mr. Villemure a little more time at the end.

Mr. Viersen, you have three minutes. Go ahead.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

I'm fascinated by this discussion.

We seem to be looking for an arbiter somewhere along the line. What would that system look like?

I remember somebody tweeted out, back in 2018 or sometime, something about Colin Kaepernick getting an endorsement from Nike, while Nike paid their workers only 20¢. Snopes then did a fact check on that and they said that was incorrect and that Nike actually pays their employees 68¢ per hour, which was still ridiculous. The point was still made, but Snopes said that it was an incorrect statement.

How do we manage that? How do we build a trusted entity?

I think Snopes lost a lot of credibility when it said that.

[Joel Finkelstein]

I think you're right.

I'll go back to something I said, but I really want to get back to speaking with MP Green because I think he raised an important point that I want to address.

Really quickly, I think that's why the importance is sometimes what the exact facts are, but oftentimes, where the disinformation is really powerful, it's not actually about the facts per se; it's really about the nature of the conflict and misrepresenting how bad the conflict really is.

When we do a good job of understanding what the conflict is and we present that, people say, “Yes, that is what the conflict is about; you're not mis-characterizing my position. This is really my position”—

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Who is the arbiter? How do you bring...?

[Joel Finkelstein]

Ideally, you bring the people themselves. Ideally, you're surveying people themselves to capture that and you're also looking at online behaviour. There's usually a distance or a dissociation gap between those things. That distance is where false polarization comes in. It's distrust that's usually unwarranted. It's almost always what's being sold.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

That's the trouble. Who brings those actors together? Who is the arbiter?

[Joel Finkelstein]

I think the body that has to deliberate this has to be made up of credible adversaries. It's people who do disagree and disagree on axes that represent popular conflicts. That has to be believable to most of the people who hold those views.

They have to be able to say that this is their guy, this is really what they believe and this is why they find this person compelling.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

How do you deal with the perceived platforming of perhaps nefarious characters?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Give a very quick response, please.

[Joel Finkelstein]

We have to have a process for arriving at who meets the criteria of being somebody who both holds a fairly polar position and is also an adult in the room.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you.

[Joel Finkelstein]

It is not always easy to make that distinction, but if you're transparent about how you've made it, you've done the best you can in bridging gaps, so you can earn people's trust.

You have to earn that. It's not going to just be given, dictated or legislated. You have to earn it.