Thank you so much for the question.
First of all, it's an old argument that isn't true. Again, freedom of speech is upheld as the most sacred right in the west, but right now, think about it, and human rights activists have said this: The right to freedom of speech of a few people is actually encroaching on the right to life of many more, and the right to safety and the right to dignity.
For example, look at genocide in Myanmar.
If we all agree that facts exist, that makes it objective, which leads to truth, which leads to trust.
I tried to show how the debate on content is all the way downstream. The legislation should come further upstream, at the algorithmic amplification and directly at the surveillance capitalism. Again, the basic question of data privacy is who owns the data? Should these large American companies own our private lives?
Beyond that as well, thank you for bringing up something that I failed to mention but mentioned in the Nobel lecture: gendered disinformation. The other reason we need to do that is because human rights defenders, women journalists and women politicians, also deserve the right to free speech. Right now, freedom of speech is being used to stifle and pound women and vulnerable sectors to silence. It's information operations.
Canada, like the U.S., now has a serious problem with the way women in politics and journalism are being targeted. The same patterns of abuse that you see in repressive regimes are now made possible in your societies by these social media platforms.
I can also send a study, “#ShePersisted”, a white paper that was done in Canada based on discussions with journalists and women in politics.