Banning on broadcast channels is a bit easier than banning Internet sites or online content. That's why we think at The Dais that the online harms act, which doesn't look so much at specific platforms as it does specific behaviour and content, is the way to go, coupled with some of that algorithmic transparency and coupled with some of that availability to have data that Professor Bradshaw mentioned.
I'll also bring in a piece that we haven't really talked about yet. This entire conversation exists in a context of trust or mistrust. Where there is a trusted messenger, that is where the misinformation or disinformation is more likely to land. Where there's a context of mistrust, then a messenger can fill that vacuum and generate trust.
I think that's the main concern with some of these propaganda outfits. It's not that people around this table don't see them as propaganda; it's more that there are people who perhaps have lower trust in some of the mainstream media institutions or some of the institutions of society more generally. In Canada the Reuters digital news survey shows that trust in mainstream media and news overall has fallen 20 percentage points over the last few years. It's in that context that some of these actors can weaponize some of those platforms or associate themselves with ideas that are harmful to Canada.
It's very difficult, both legislatively and in other ways, to actually ban platforms or sites in Canada. Countries have tried to do this, including some western countries and some in the global south with very large populations. We've seen those bans. TikTok is banned in India. There was an attempt to ban X in Brazil. It's difficult enough to ban at the individual outlet level. It's very operationally difficult and may not be meeting the interests of what we're trying to pursue here.