Evidence of meeting #134 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was political.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you for your comment, Mr. Villemure.
This study is about the impact of disinformation and misinformation on the work of parliamentarians. I think Mr. Caputo is going to bring it back to that.
You have a minute left, Mr. Caputo. Go ahead, please.
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Candidly, we're talking about how a government agency communicates with the public and parliamentarians. I don't know what could be more germane to misinformation and disinformation.
I will move forward.
The government has spoken with parliamentarians and the public about needle exchanges.
What kind of picture have they painted about needle exchanges? I have about 10 or 20 seconds left. Could you answer that in about 15 seconds, please?
October 22nd, 2024 / 4:05 p.m.
Correctional Officer, Federal, As an Individual
It's that it's a harm reduction measure.
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
What kind of danger are you seeing? Is that being communicated to parliamentarians?
Correctional Officer, Federal, As an Individual
I don't believe that's being accurately communicated at all. The dangers we're seeing are the introduction of weapons into the facilities and the feeding of this underground economy. We're creating elements to the economy that we haven't dealt with before.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Mr. Caputo, we're out of time in this round.
Ms. Khalid, you have six minutes. Go ahead, please.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Thank you very much, Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses for appearing today.
Professor Wagner, if it's okay, I'll start with you.
I'm sure you've been studying this for the past couple of years now. It's been awhile that the Conservative Party leader has been attacking mainstream media and journalists with the intention to mislead and make Canadians believe that the news networks they have trusted for many years are no longer trustworthy.
Can you comment on the danger this presents to the state of Canada's information ecosystem and our democracy?
Professor and William T. Evjue Distinguished Chair for the Wisconsin Idea, University of Wisconsin-Madison, As an Individual
There's a long line of research in the study of political communication that researchers call “blaming the referees”. It's a strategy that political elites can often use to try to diminish trust in verifiably accurate news sources.
There's a distinction to be made between news sources that have things like corrections policies and that punish journalists when they get facts wrong versus other organizations that also sometimes frame themselves as being news organizations, but are primarily opinion organizations.
When it comes to the more trusted places—the places where they're engaging in what we would think of as more legitimate journalism, which doesn't mean they're always right, but it means that they correct themselves when they're wrong—it's a danger to diminish trust in those organizations without evidence.
A lot of times, a strategy that political elites use is to try to diminish the amount of trust in mainstream news sources. The purpose of that diminishing trust is then to not face consequences from voters at the ballot box, as an example, for behaviours that lawmakers or others may engage in.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
I appreciate that.
I will tack on the second half of that question to my next question.
On inflammatory language and material, you spoke about this in your opening remarks with respect to emotions getting more engagement than facts. We've seen dog whistles, etc., by political parties generating a lot of engagement. That engagement does lead to ad revenue as well.
Is it fair to say that media platforms are actually benefiting financially when and if they allow this dissemination of misinformation and disinformation on their platforms?
Professor and William T. Evjue Distinguished Chair for the Wisconsin Idea, University of Wisconsin-Madison, As an Individual
I think it's fair to say that social media platforms benefit from that, and some news media platforms benefit from that as well. It partially depends upon the major purpose of the platform and why people use it.
If it's a place where people are trying to learn what's true, there might not be as much of a financial benefit as for those who might seek out a news source because that source tells them they are right and the other side is wrong.
There are advantages to following that kind of model, but not for all media in a blanket way.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
I appreciate that.
I'll go back to my original question, partly.
Is there any correlation between a person's distrust of mainstream media sources and their participation in the democratic process? If so, how?
Professor and William T. Evjue Distinguished Chair for the Wisconsin Idea, University of Wisconsin-Madison, As an Individual
There is, in some ways. People who distrust mainstream sources tend to be more supportive of political violence as an avenue to exact political preferences. Many people who are distrustful of mainstream news sources are also highly participatory. In fact, many people who believe in conspiracy theories are extraordinarily knowledgeable and have very low trust in political institutions like mainstream news media sources or elements of government.
There are lots of different ways that one's distrust of news could foster participation. Sometimes it encourages more violence, but often it encourages more participation in voting, political donations, posting online and things like that.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
I appreciate that.
You spoke about the role that western social media platforms plays.
Do you think there is an obligation for these social media platforms with respect to the algorithms and how information is disseminated, whether it is truthful information, misinformation, disinformation or hate speech?
Do you think that social media companies have a responsibility to control how those algorithms are impacting what an individual Canadian is seeing within their feed and how it's impacting their participation in the democratic process?
Professor and William T. Evjue Distinguished Chair for the Wisconsin Idea, University of Wisconsin-Madison, As an Individual
There are responsibilities that social media platforms have when it comes to the unfettered amplification of things that are known to be false. Those can often be very dangerous and have violent consequences, or other consequences that might be political consequences but are related to believing in things that are verifiably not true. Much of politics operates in a grey area where some things that are said are true and some things are not, so it can be dangerous for social media platforms to regulate with too heavy of a hand and stifle speech.
When it comes to de-amplifying statements that are known to be verifiably false, social media platforms have an obligation, in my view, to not try to share that information widely with their users.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
You spoke a little bit about fact-checking as a method of controlling misinformation and disinformation and how it's disseminated. You also talked about the bias as to who, exactly, is fact-checking. I've seen some people, if they're sold on an idea, who Google something and find 20 articles countering their idea. All they need to do is to find that one article to confirm what their belief is.
Conservative
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Absolutely.
How do you think that plays into what kinds of regulations and partnerships governments need to have with social media companies in that dissemination of information?
Professor and William T. Evjue Distinguished Chair for the Wisconsin Idea, University of Wisconsin-Madison, As an Individual
That's a very difficult question to answer, because it's very difficult to figure out the volume there. It's something that platforms need to discuss with regulators, but I don't have a quick answer to that question, I'm sorry to say.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
I'm just wondering if the witness can, perhaps, think about it and give us a written response to that question.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
I'll deal with that at the end of the meeting, like we typically do with those requests.
It is now Mr. Villemure's turn.
Witnesses, make sure that you're on the French translation channel, please.
Mr. Villemure, you have the floor for six minutes.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses for being with us today. It is a pleasure to hear their very informative comments.
I'm going to start with Mr. Wagner.
In general, do social media companies really care about disinformation, or are they just pretending to?
We know, as my colleague said earlier, that revenue is based on the number of clicks.
When it comes to disinformation, are their concerns real or just for show?
Professor and William T. Evjue Distinguished Chair for the Wisconsin Idea, University of Wisconsin-Madison, As an Individual
First, I think that "they" is a term.... Social media platforms operate really differently, but, in general, social media platforms vary in how aggressive they are at de-amplifying false claims and amplifying other kinds of claims.
As an example, in the United States in 2016, a high percentage of things that were not true were exposed to people over Facebook. Facebook was then deeply criticized for that, and in 2020, that percentage dropped precipitously because Facebook engaged in more aggressive diminishment of inauthentic behaviour on its platform. When the criticism died down, it stopped doing that and that percentage is increasing again.
They're not static in how they engage in these kinds of behaviours. It often is in response to criticism and perceptions of potential regulation.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
You mentioned a little earlier that extreme, banal and trivial content generates more clicks than matters of public interest.
For the most part, social media has become a vector for entertainment rather than news, even though people claim they get their news from social media. What can we do, as politicians or parliamentarians, to send what I would call a serious message, at a time when people are looking for jokes and entertainment?