Yes, I think we tracked 79 countries that, in the last 10 years, have passed laws on misinformation and foreign interference in elections. They will very frequently cite or point to democratic nations such as the U.S., Canada, France, Germany, the U.K. or Australia for why they're doing what they're doing. The justification tends to fall under the broad rubric of national security. That's why I think only using legislative means to curtail some of this stuff is dangerous. Other, less democratic countries without the guardrails we have in Canada will use our rhetoric to pass and justify their own laws.
One example is, I believe, Kyrgyzstan. They passed a pretty broad law that allows the government to take down content and censor whatever they dislike. As reasons for doing this, they specifically cited the U.K. white paper on online harms and NetzDG, the German bill. I think they also cited a French fake news bill.
Again, I don't want to say we should ignore what's happening in Canada. I just think we have to be very careful about how we frame it and specifically call out the effects and outcomes. I think the testimonies of the other panellists are really important for bringing that out. That's why I also highlight transnational repression. It's not the same as other types of foreign interference.