Transcript: Would Taming Big Tech Curtail Democracy? | May 13, 2021

An animated slate reads "The Democracy Agenda. A TVO and Toronto Star partnership."

Steve sits in a room with white walls, a low slanted ceiling and several framed pictures on the walls including one of George Drew. He's slim, clean-shaven, in his fifties, with short curly brown hair. He's wearing a checkered shirt and a black tie.

A caption on screen reads "Would taming big tech curtail democracy? @spaikin, @theagenda."

Steve says DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENTS AROUND THE WORLD FACE A COMMON, A VEXING PROBLEM. BIG TECH... THINK FACEBOOK, YouTube, AND SOCIAL MEDIA BROADLY CONSTRUED... HAS ENABLED PEOPLE TO ENGAGE AS NEVER BEFORE. BUT WHEN THAT GOES SIDEWAYS, SOME CITIZENS STILL LOOK TO GOVERNMENT TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. CAN DEMOCRACIES FIND THE RIGHT BALANCE? LET'S FIND OUT, AS WE ASK: IN VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA: CAROLINE ELLIOTT, SHE'S A POLITICAL CONSULTANT, WHO'S CURRENTLY PURSUING A PhD AT SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY...

Caroline is in her thirties, with straight brown hair pulled back. She's wearing a black blazer.

Steve continues AND IN ONTARIO'S CAPITAL CITY, STARTING AT HARBOURFRONT: NAVNEET ALANG, TECH COLUMNIST AT THE TORONTO STAR...

Navneet is in his forties, balding, with a trimmed beard. He's wearing a checkered blue shirt.

Steve continues AND IN THE JUNCTION: DANIEL BERNHARD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF FRIENDS OF CANADIAN BROADCASTING...

Daniel is in his late thirties, bald and clean-shaven. He's wearing a black blazer and a blue shirt.

Steve continues IT'S GREAT TO HAVE YOU THREE ON OUR DEMOCRACY AGENDA HERE ON TVO TONIGHT, THIS PARTNERSHIP WE'VE GOT GOING WITH THE TORONTO STAR GOING BACK THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS. DANIEL, I WANT TO GET YOU IN HERE FIRST AND TALKING ABOUT BILL C-10 WHICH STARTED I GATHER AS AN UPDATE TO CANADA'S BROADCASTING ACT AND FIND A PROCESS BY WHICH AMERICAN BIG TECH COMPANIES WOULD PAY, QUOTE, UNQUOTE, THEIR FAIR SHARE FROM BEING ABLE TO PROFIT FROM THEIR ACTIVITIES IN CANADA. SOMEHOW THIS HAS TURNED INTO A FEROCIOUS ARGUMENT ABOUT WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA IS LIMITING CANADIANS' FREE SPEECH RIGHTS. HOW DID THAT HAPPEN?

The caption changes to "Daniel Bernhard. Friends of Public Broadcasting."

Daniel says MYSTERIOUSLY. YOU'RE RIGHT, THE BROADCASTING ACT HAS NOT BEEN UPDATED SINCE 1999 AND WE'RE NOW IN THE POSITION WHERE CANADA'S LARGEST BROADCASTERS ARE COMPANIES LIKE YouTube AND NETFLIX THAT ARE NOT GOVERNED BY CANADA'S BROADCASTING LAW. SO IT WAS LONG PASTIME FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO MODERNIZE THE LAW, NOT JUST IN TERMS OF WHO'S INCLUDED, BUT ALSO HOW THE LAW CAN OPERATE TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S MORE FLEXIBILITY AND REGULATION, FOR EXAMPLE, TO ACCOUNT FOR THE FACT THAT COMPANIES LIKE YouTube ARE, YOU KNOW, OPERATING VERY DIFFERENTLY THAN TRADITIONAL BROADCASTERS. WHAT HAPPENED WAS IS THAT THERE WAS A PROVISION IN THE BILL THAT SAID THAT COMPANIES WHOSE CONTENT IS USER-GENERATED WOULD BE EXEMPT FROM REGULATION, SO THAT'S COMPANIES LIKE FACEBOOK, YouTube, ET CETERA. AND THAT PROVISION WAS REMOVED. AND THEN THE UPROAR EMERGED SAYING THAT IF COMPANIES LIKE FACEBOOK OR YouTube WERE SUBJECT TO ANY REGULATION AT ALL, THAT INDIVIDUALS' FREE EXPRESSION WAS SOMEHOW UNDER THREAT. AND SO I BELIEVE THIS IS A FALSE ASSUMPTION, BUT THAT IS HOPEFULLY AN ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION OF HOW WE GOT TO THIS DEBATE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Steve says NO, IT'S A VERY GOOD ANSWER. I MUST SAY, I'VE BEEN STRUCK BY SOME OF THE THINGS AND, NAV, I'LL GO TO YOU ON THIS, I'VE BEEN STRUCK BY SOME OF THE THINGS THAT I'VE HEARD ABOUT BILL C-10. FOR EXAMPLE, THIS BILL REPRESENTS ONE OF THE MOST RADICAL EX-TENSIONS OF STATE REGULATION IN CANADIAN HISTORY. I'VE ALSO READ IT'S THE MOST ANTI-INTERNET GOVERNMENT IN CANADIAN HISTORY. I'VE ALSO READ IT'S THE MOST SERIOUS ATTACK ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION ONLINE. ARE THESE VIEWS, IN YOUR VIEW, ACCURATE?

The caption changes to "Navneet Alang. Toronto Star."

Navneet says I MEAN, I WOULDN'T SAY THAT THEY'RE ACCURATE, BUT I DO UNDERSTAND THE ROOT OF THE ANXIETY. I THINK THAT WHAT'S HAPPENING IS THAT THERE IS SORT OF A SLIGHTLY ARCHAIC MODEL THAT WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT BROADCASTING IN, YOU KNOW, THE 20TH CENTURY THAT IS NOW... THERE HAS BEEN A HAM-FISTED ATTEMPT BY THE GOVERNMENT TO UPDATE THAT FOR THE 21ST CENTURY. AND I THINK APPLYING THE MENTALITY OF BROADCASTING IN THE 20TH CENTURY TO THE 21ST CENTURY PROBABLY DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. AND SO WHILE I THINK THAT THERE IS SOME HYPERBOLE INVOLVED, THAT THERE IS SOME ENORMOUS OVERREACH, I DO THINK THAT REGULATION OF THE INTERNET IS A GOOD IDEA, BUT I THINK THAT THE WAY THAT THINGS HAVE SORT OF ROLLED OUT AND SOME OF THE VAGUE LANGUAGE IN BILL C-10 HAS, I THINK, GIVEN PEOPLE SORT OF JUSTIFIABLE ANXIETY AS TO SOME OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF THIS.

Steve says ALL RIGHT. CAROLINE, LET ME READ A COMMENT TO YOU. THIS IS FROM THE HERITAGE MINISTER STEVEN GABEAU WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR C-10 AND HERE'S WHAT HE HAD TO SAY A FEW MONTHS AGO.

A quote appears on screen, under the title "Dangerous Internet." The quote reads "As Canadians spend more time online they also can find themselves exposed to harmful content that can perpetuate crime and trickle into our lives. Both the right to freedom of speech and the right to security of the person are two important pillars within our charter of rights and freedoms. Neither is optional for our government.
Despite their many benefits, online platforms can be abused by bad actors, intent on inciting hate, promoting violence and extremism or engaging in other illegal activities. Furthermore, hateful speech online silences voices and undermines democracy. We've seen too many examples of public officials retreating from public service due to the hateful online content targeted towards themselves or even their families."
Quoted from Honourable Steven Guilbeault, remarks to "Democracy in the Digital Age: Addressing Online Harms." March 31, 2021.

Steve says STEVEN GUILBEAULT ON YouTube SAYING THAT BACK IN MARCH. WE UNDERSTAND, CAROLINE, WE HAVE COMPETING RIGHTS HERE: THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH AND THE RIGHT TO FEEL SAFE FROM ILLEGAL HATRED. IN YOUR VIEW, ARE THESE EQUIVALENT RIGHTS IN CANADA TODAY?

The caption changes to "Caroline Elliott. Simon Fraser University. @NVanCaroline."

Caroline says WELL, I THINK IT'S A QUESTION THAT'S PLAGUED PHILOSOPHERS FOR CENTURIES. WHERE EXACTLY THAT LINE SHOULD BE DRAWN ON FREE SPEECH. MOST OF US AGREE THAT WHEN IT SHOULD BE IN PLACE. THINGS LIKE HATE SPEECH AS DEFINED IN CANADIAN LAW. IT'S ILLEGAL ALREADY. COUNSELLING SUICIDE. THREATS. ALL KINDS OF THINGS LIKE THAT, INCITING VIOLENCE. THOSE KINDS OF THINGS ARE SPECIFIED IN THE LAW AS ILLEGAL. MOST PEOPLE I THINK WOULD TAKE A VERY EXTREME LIBERTARIAN TO SUGGEST THAT NO SUCH LIMITS WOULD BE IN PLACE. SO IT'S A FIELD WHERE A DELICATE BALANCE HAS BEEN SOUGHT. AND IN THE FACE OF THIS DELICATE BALANCE, WITH THESE COMPETING TENSIONS, YOU HAVE THE LIBERAL GOVERNMENT COMING IN AND EFFECTIVELY TRAMPLING ALL OVER IT. THEY'RE SORT OF STOMPING IN AND SAYING: LOOK, WE WANT TO ENFORCE SOME CANADIAN CONTENT STANDARDS ON THE INTERNET. AND THAT MIGHT EVEN BE A WORTHY GOAL AND THERE MIGHT EVEN BE A LOT OF PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR SUCH A MEASURE. BUT THE POINT IS, THEY'RE DOING IT IN SUCH A WAY THAT CAUSES THAT VERY DELICATE BALANCE I MENTIONED TO BE THROWN IN A LITTLE BIT OF DISARRAY BECAUSE ONE OF THESE FUNDAMENTAL THINGS, FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, WHICH I BELIEVE IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT... YOU'VE ASKED ME TO PRIORITIZE THEM AND I HESITATE TO DO THAT, ALTHOUGH I WOULD SAY I SUPPORT THE BROADEST POSSIBLE CONCEPT OF FREE SPEECH WHILE RECOGNIZING THAT BASIC LIMITS NEED TO BE IN PLACE. SHOULD THOSE BASIC LIMITS BE JEOPARDIZED FOR THINGS LIKE CANADIAN CONTENT AS IN THE CASE OF BILL C-10, I DON'T THINK THAT RANKS UP THERE. SECURITY OF THE PERSON. THAT'S A DIFFERENT QUESTION. IF IT'S ILLEGAL, IT'S ILLEGAL. WHETHER OR NOT IT'S BEING SAID AND COMMUNICATED BY A CANADIAN ON THE INTERNET OR SAID AND COMMUNICATED BY A CANADIAN IN THE NEWSPAPER OR ON THEIR BLOG OR WHAT HAVE YOU. I HOPE THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION. BUT IT'S A VERY DELICATE BALANCE.

The caption changes to "The Democracy Agenda. A TVO and Toronto Star partnership."

Steve says I UNDERSTAND ABOUT THE DELICATE BALANCE. BUT LET ME REFERENCE THOSE SOMEWHAT APOCALYPTIC QUOTES FROM EARLIER. DO YOU ASSOCIATE YOURSELF WITH SOME OF THOSE COMMENTS THAT WE HEARD EARLIER ABOUT THE APOCALYPTIC NATURE THAT SOME PEOPLE ASSOCIATE WITH C-10?

Caroline says THOSE ARE PRETTY DRAMATIC. BUT I WOULD SAY IT'S ABSOLUTELY SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE TREATED WITH THE UTMOST CAUTION. IF YOU'RE GOING TO COME IN AS GOVERNMENT AND SUGGEST EXPANDING GOVERNMENT'S CONTROL, REGULATORY CONTROL, OF SPEECH, YOU BETTER BE DARN SURE YOU'RE DOING IT RIGHT. AND I DON'T THINK BILL C-10 GETS IT RIGHT. I THINK IT'S MESSY. I DON'T THINK IT ACHIEVES WHAT IT'S TRYING TO ACHIEVE, AT LEAST NOT WITH A JUSTIFIABLE... NOT IN A WAY THAT YOU CAN JUSTIFY THAT LEVEL OF INFRINGEMENT. SO I MAY NOT USE THOSE EXACT WORDS, BUT SOME SERIOUS CAUTION IS WARRANTED HERE.

Steve says OKAY. FAIR ENOUGH. LET'S SHARE SOME PUBLIC OPINION THAT WE HAVE ON THIS ISSUE AND FIND OUT WHERE CANADIANS ROUGHLY ARE ON IT. THE FRIENDS OF CANADIAN BROADCASTING, WHICH IS OF COURSE DANIEL'S OUTFIT, THEY HAD NANOS RESEARCH DO SOME POLLING ON THIS TO FIND OUT CANADIANS' ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE SO-CALLED BEHEMOTHS, AS THE MINISTER REFERRED TO THEM AS, AND HERE'S WHAT THEY HAD TO SAY.

A slate appears on screen, with the title "Make them pay."

Steve reads data from the slate and says
83 percent OF CANADIANS SUPPORT OR SOMEWHAT SUPPORT LEGISLATION TO HOLD COMPANIES SUCH AS FACEBOOK AND TWITTER LEGALLY LIABLE FOR ILLEGAL USER-GENERATED CONTENT. AND THEN WE "THE AGENDA" HAD PUBLIC SQUARE RESEARCH ASK A DIFFERENTLY WORDED QUESTION ABOUT ONLINE SPEECH AND WE GOT THIS ANSWER...

The slate changes to one titled "Free speech? Not so much."

Steve reads data from the slate and says
76 percent OF CANADIANS STRONGLY OR SOMEWHAT AGREE THAT THE GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO REGULATE HATE SPEECH ON SOCIAL MEDIA. I THINK, DANIEL, WE CAN INFER FROM THAT THAT CANADIANS ARE NOT NECESSARILY THE MOST LIBERTARIAN GROUP IN THE WORLD. BEYOND THAT, WHAT WOULD YOU READ INTO THOSE NUMBERS?

The caption changes to "Daniel Bernhard, @sendinthewolf."

Daniel says I WOULD READ A COUPLE THINGS INTO THOSE NUMBERS. THE FIRST IS THAT THE KIND OF COTTAGE INDUSTRY OF OVERNIGHT BROADCASTING EXPERTS THAT HAS, YOU KNOW, EXPLODED ON TWITTER AND IN THE COLUMNS OF NEWSPAPERS IN RESPONSE TO BILL C-10, I THINK REPRESENT ACTUALLY A VERY SMALL, ALMOST FRINGE VIEW RELATIVE TO THE CANADIAN PUBLIC, WHICH ACTUALLY TAKES A MUCH MORE REASONABLE, MEASURED APPROACH, AND RECOGNIZES THAT SOMETHING LIKE THE CHRISTCHURCH MASSACRE WHERE, YOU KNOW, A GUY IN NEW ZEALAND WENT INTO A MOSQUE AND FILMED HIMSELF MURDERING 51 PEOPLE AND THAT WAS LIVE-STREAMED IN CANADA ON FACEBOOK. THAT HAS NO PLACE ON TV AND THAT HAS NO PLACE IN OUR LIVES ON THE INTERNET, AND I DON'T THINK ANYONE BELIEVES THAT PUNISHING A COMPANY LIKE FACEBOOK FOR BROADCASTING SOMETHING LIKE THAT IS AN INFRINGEMENT OF FREE EXPRESSION. BUT I WANT TO COME BACK TO ONE POINT THAT CAROLINE MADE THAT I THINK IS VERY IMPORTANT. HER ASSERTION THAT THIS IS AN EXPANSION OF GOVERNMENT'S CONTROL ON SPEECH. AND I THINK THAT, AGAIN, COMING BACK TO THE KIND OF OVERNIGHT GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE TAKEN AN INTEREST IN THIS AND FOLLOWING ON THAT, THE POINT OF ANXIETY OR UNCERTAINTY AROUND THIS IS VERY UNDERSTANDABLE, BILL C-10 ACTUALLY RESTRICTS THE CRTC'S POWERS OVER INDIVIDUALS ON SOCIAL MEDIA. THE CURRENT BROADCASTING ACT IS COMPLETELY INDISCRIMINATE. IT DOESN'T DISTINGUISH BETWEEN USER-GENERATED AND PROFESSIONAL CONTENT, IT DOESN'T DISTINGUISH BETWEEN TELEVISION OR INTERNET, AND SO THE ONLY THING STANDING BETWEEN US AND THE CRTC REGULATING ALL DIGITAL MEDIA RIGHT NOW IS THE CRTC ITSELF. AND BILL C-10, FOR ALL OF ITS PROBLEMS... AND IT HAS MANY, MANY PROBLEMS... ACTUALLY INTRODUCES PROTECTIONS SAYING INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE UPLOADING CONTENT TO SOCIAL MEDIA WILL NOT BE REGULATED LIKE BROADCASTERS, AND THAT PART OF THE BILL WAS UPHELD. IT STAYS. SO ACTUALLY THIS IS A RESTRICTION OF THE CRTC'S AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO GOVERNING THESE SERVICES AND ACTUALLY INTRODUCES PROTECTIONS FOR INDIVIDUALS FOR THE FIRST TIME THAT DON'T EXIST TODAY AND WILL NOT EXIST IF BILL C-10 IS DEFEATED AS MANY PEOPLE ARE CALLING FOR IT TO BE.

Steve says CAROLINE, DO YOU WANT TO COME BACK ON THAT?

Caroline says YEAH. THE LIBERALS HAVE BEEN SAYING THAT THIS IS ABOUT APPLYING CANADIAN CONTENT RULES TO STREAMING SERVICES AND SOCIAL NETWORKING PLATFORMS. THE PROBLEM IS MOST SOCIAL MEDIA CONTENT IS GENERATED BY INDIVIDUALS. AND WHILE BILL C-10 USED TO HAVE A CLAUSE THAT EXEMPTED THAT FROM THE BILL, IT WAS REMOVED BY THE COMMITTEE REVIEWING THE BILL. THAT'S MY CONCERN. AND FURTHERMORE, WHEN OPPOSITION PARTIES PRESSURED THE GOVERNMENT TO PUT THIS BILL BEFORE, YOU KNOW, AGAINST THE CHARTER, TO ENSURE THAT IT WAS COMPLIANT WITH THE CHARTER, THAT MOTION WAS REALLY... IT WAS DENIED AND ULTIMATELY UNDER SERIOUS PRESSURE DID THEY FINALLY GO AHEAD AND DO SO. SO MY QUESTION IS, IF THIS IS ABOUT REGULATING CANADIAN CONTENT, WHY GO THERE? WHY CAPTURE USER-GENERATED CONTENT IN THE LEGISLATION? AND WHY NOT ENSURE THAT IT IS COMPLIANT WITH THE CHARTER? THAT SHOULD BE ONE OF GOVERNMENT'S FIRST PRIORITIES. THEY SHOULD BE EXCITED ABOUT ENSURING THAT RIGHT IS PROTECTED.

Daniel says THERE IS NO ARGUMENT ABOUT WHETHER THE CHARTER SHOULD BE APPLIED AND, YOU KNOW, SENDING THE BILL BACK TO THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT FOR A CHARTER REVIEW, IS COMPLETELY FINE. BUT THERE ARE A COUPLE OF MISTAKES I THINK OR ERRORS IN WHAT YOU JUST SAID. FIRST OF ALL, THE LIBERALS DON'T CONTROL THE HERITAGE COMMITTEE. IT'S A MINORITY PARLIAMENT. THE OPPOSITION CONTROLS THE HERITAGE COMMITTEE. SECOND, I WOULD ADD THAT THE PROTECTION FOR INDIVIDUALS UPLOADING CONTENT STAYS. WHAT WAS REMOVED WAS A PROVISION THAT SAID ANY COMPANY WHOSE CONTENT IS USER-GENERATED CANNOT BE REGULATED. AND SO IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO SEPARATE. WE CAN PROTECT INDIVIDUALS FROM REGULATION WITHOUT PROTECTING MARK ZUCKERBERG FROM REGULATION, AND THIS IS AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION. AND YOU'RE RIGHT WHEN YOU SAID THAT THE BILL WAS SLOPPY AT THE INTRODUCTION BECAUSE THIS PROVISION SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN THERE. WE SHOULD HAVE PROTECTED INDIVIDUALS WHILE STILL ALLOWING THE BROADCASTING ACT TO APPLY TO CANADA'S LARGEST BROADCASTING COMPANIES. THAT DISTINCTION IS VERY IMPORTANT, AND PEOPLE ARE FORGETTING THERE IS A PROTECTION FOR INDIVIDUALS. BY THE WAY, THE OPPOSITION... NOT THE GOVERNMENT... CONTROLS THE COMMITTEE RIGHT NOW.

Steve says CAROLINE, ONE MORE RESPONSE ON THAT BEFORE I GO TO NAVNEET?

Caroline says WELL, I GUESS I WOULD SAY... ARE YOU DENYING THE FACT, I GUESS, THAT THE FEDERAL LIBERALS HAVE PUSHED BACK AGAINST THE IDEA THAT BILL C-10 SHOULD BE PUT TO THE JUSTICE MINISTRY FOR REVIEW AGAINST THE CHARTER? BECAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED, AND UNDER PRESSURE, THEY FINALLY AGREED TO DO THAT.

Daniel says THE MINISTER'S PERFORMANCE ON THIS BILL HAS BEEN A HUGE PART OF THE PROBLEM. FRIENDS OF THE NON-PARTISAN ORGANIZATION, AND WE DON'T SUPPORT THE WAY THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS HANDLED THIS. IN FACT, WE'VE ACTUALLY PROPOSED 19 DETAILED AMENDMENTS TO THE BILL SO I'M NOT EVEN IN A POSITION TO SAY THAT THE BILL SHOULD PASS OR THE BILL SHOULDN'T PASS. YOU'RE ENTIRELY RIGHT THAT THE GOVERNMENT'S PERFORMANCE HAS MADE THINGS WORSE AND HAS FAILED TO REASSURE PEOPLE WHO HAVE OTHERWISE REASONABLE CONCERNS BASED ON WHAT THEY'RE HEARING IN THE MEDIA. BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO CLARIFY WHAT'S IN THE TEXT OF THE LAW. AND I AGREE WITH YOU. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A THREAT TO FREE EXPRESSION IN THIS BILL, AND SO GOING BACK TO THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT FOR A CHARTER REVIEW, FOR EXAMPLE, WOULD BE A PERFECTLY REASONABLE STEP AND ONE THAT I WOULD WELCOME FOR SURE.

Steve says OKAY. IF WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT, NAVNEET, LET ME GET YOU IN ON THIS. AS MUCH AS CANADIANS APPARENTLY FROM THOSE POLLING NUMBERS SUGGEST THAT THEY WANT HATE SPEECH CONTROLLED, ARE YOU CONFIDENT THAT WE KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HATE SPEECH, WHICH IS ILLEGAL, AND SIMPLY ROBUST, MAYBE EVEN ANGRY DISAGREEMENT?

Navneet says I MEAN, I'M NOT SURE THAT WE DO. BUT I THINK THAT ONE OF THE PROBLEMS IS, IS THAT I DON'T THINK FACEBOOK AND YouTube DO EITHER AND I DON'T THINK THAT THEY'VE DEMONSTRATED A PARTICULARLY GOOD UNDERSTANDING OF THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THOSE TWO THINGS. BUT I DO THINK THAT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THIS SORT OF QUESTION ABOUT, YOU KNOW, DRAWING FINE LINES BETWEEN DIFFERENT TYPES OF SPEECH OR QUESTIONS OF FREE SPEECH, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT IS THAT THERE'S A LANGUAGE IN THE BILL THAT TALKS ABOUT DISCOVERABILITY, WHICH IS KIND OF THE LANGUAGE THAT PEOPLE HAVE TAKEN UP TO TALK ABOUT THE USE OF ALGORITHMS. AND SO BECAUSE THERE IS SO MUCH CONTENT ONLINE, RIGHT, BECAUSE THERE'S WAY MORE CONTENT ON YouTube OR TWITTER OR FACEBOOK THAN ONE PERSON COULD POSSIBLY CONSUME, COMPANIES USE ALGORITHMS TO SURFACE THINGS THAT THEY THINK WE WANT TO SEE. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THIS BILL IS PROPOSING IS TO SORT OF REGULATE DISCOVERABILITY, THAT IS TO SAY, TO REGULATE ALGORITHMS. AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE THINGS GET A LITTLE BIT TRICKY. BECAUSE I THINK TRADITIONAL NOTIONS OF SPEECH IS ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE SORT OF ALLOWED TO SAY PUBLICLY OR DO YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY SOMETHING PUBLICLY? IN THE ERA OF THE INTERNET, I THINK THE QUESTIONS OF FREE SPEECH COME ABOUT: DO YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE AMPLIFIED, RIGHT? BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT ALGORITHMS ACTUALLY DO. THEY AMPLIFY PARTICULAR POSTS OR PIECES OF CONTENT AND THEY WILL DEPRIORITIZE OTHER PARTICULAR... OR OTHER TYPES OF CONTENT. AND SO I THINK THAT... LIKE THAT TO ME IS SORT OF THE CRUX OF THE SPEECH ISSUE HERE, IS IT'S LESS ABOUT WHAT ONE IS ALLOWED TO SAY VERSUS WHAT PARTICULAR PLATFORMS PRIORITIZE AND DEPRIORITIZE, BECAUSE THAT SEEMS TO ME THE CRUX OF BILL C-10, OR AT LEAST THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS ISSUE.

Steve says ACTUALLY, THAT'S A FASCINATING ANGLE ON THIS STORY, NAVNEET, AND MAYBE YOU COULD FOLLOW UP ON THAT. HOW IN HEAVEN'S NAME DO YOU PASS A REGULATION THAT CAN SOMEHOW HAVE AN IMPACT ON HOW AN ALGORITHM RATES YOUR LEVEL OF INTEREST IN OTHER THINGS ON THE INTERNET? THAT SOUNDS TRICKY TO DO.

The caption changes to "Navneet Alang, @navalang."

Navneet says I THINK IT WOULDN'T BE SO MUCH ABOUT INDIVIDUAL INTERESTS AS MUCH AS, IF THERE IS A DESIRE ON THE PART OF THIS GOVERNMENT TO PRIORITIZE OR SURFACE CANADIAN CONTENT SPECIFICALLY, ONE ASSUMES SORT OF A POTENTIAL OR, YOU KNOW, A SORT OF HYPOTHETICAL REGULATION WOULD BE THAT YouTube... YOU KNOW, IN THE SAME WAY THAT CURRENTLY RADIO STATIONS THAT PLAY I THINK 30 percent CANADIAN CONTENT, YouTube MIGHT HAVE TO SURFACE SOME PARTICULAR NUMBER OF, YOU KNOW, PIECES OF CANADIAN CONTENT. THE TROUBLE WITH THAT IS (a), FIRST OF ALL, HOW DO YOU DEFINE WHAT IS CANADIAN? BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, KIND OF THE INTERNATIONAL NATURE OF THE INTERNET HAS MADE THAT QUITE DIFFICULT. AND (2) HOW DO YOU SORT OF UNDERSTAND WHAT YouTube OR FACEBOOK ARE DOING WITH THEIR ALGORITHMS BECAUSE THESE ARE, YOU KNOW, VERY CLOSELY GUARDED INDUSTRY SECRETS. AND SO I THINK THAT THAT IS GOING TO BE A VERY COMPLICATED ISSUE. I'M NOT ACTUALLY SURE THAT IT'S ABSOLUTELY THE RIGHT SOLUTION TO DEALING WITH THE QUESTION OF CAN-CON IN THE 21ST CENTURY.

Steve says CAROLINE, LET ME GET YOU BACK IN HERE AND LET'S GO BACK TO FIRST PRINCIPLES HERE. WE SEEM TO BE LIVING IN A TIME IN WHICH A LOT OF PEOPLE ON ALL PARTS OF THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM ARE REALLY NOT INTERESTED IN LISTENING TO THINGS THAT MAKE THEM UNCOMFORTABLE OR THAT PUSH THEIR BUTTONS OR THAT OFFEND THEM. I'M NOT SURE... WELL, I AM SURE. THERE'S NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT NOT TO BE OFFENDED OR NOT TO BE MADE UNCOMFORTABLE BY SPEECH. BUT THAT SEEMS TO BE WHERE WE'RE AT THESE DAYS. EXPLAIN IT TO PEOPLE WHO MAY BE HAVING DIFFICULTY WITH THAT. WHAT IS THE ARGUMENT FOR TOLERATING DISAGREEABLE IDEAS AND SPEECH?

The caption changes to "Caroline Elliott. Simon Fraser University."

Caroline says WELL, I THINK THE WAY I LOOK AT IT IS THAT UNCOMFORTABLE SPEECH, SPEECH THAT CHALLENGES THE STATUS QUO, SPEECH THAT FORCES US TO STOP AND THINK, HAS OFTEN BEEN DEEMED RADICAL OR OFFENSIVE. BUT THE REALITY IS, IT HAS ACTUALLY LED TO A GREAT DEAL OF SCIENTIFIC, POLITICAL PROGRESS. THINGS LIKE WOMEN'S EQUALITY RIGHTS. THINGS LIKE THE NOTION OF RULE BY THE PEOPLE AS OPPOSED TO A HEREDITARY MONARCH OR SOMETHING. THE NOTION OF THE EARTH GOING AROUND THE SUN AND NOT THE SUN GOING AROUND THE EARTH. THOSE ARE ALL THINGS THAT WERE DEEMED INCREDIBLY RADICAL AT THE TIME. PEOPLE WERE PERSECUTED FOR HOLDING THOSE BELIEFS. SO THE REASON THAT I BELIEVE SO STRONGLY IN THE VERY EXPANSIVE VIEW OF FREE SPEECH IS BECAUSE WE NEED TO BE VERY SURE THAT WHEN WE'RE SHUTTING DOWN SPEECH BY OTHERS, THAT THEY ARE THE GALILEOS OF OUR TIME OR SOCRATES OF OUR TIME OR WHAT HAVE YOU. IT DOES MEAN TOLERATING SOME VIEWS THAT MOST OF US WOULD CONSIDER PROBABLY MOST ABHORRENT, FRANKLY. BECAUSE ONCE GOVERNMENT JUMPS INTO THE WORLD OF DECIDING WHAT CAN OR CAN'T BE SAID OR WHAT IS OR ISN'T OFFENSIVE, IT BECOMES VERY SUBJECTIVE. AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE YOU RUN INTO PROBLEMS. I WROTE A COLUMN JUST FOR THE HUB IF YOU'RE AWARE OF THAT OUTLET, IT'S A GREAT OUTLET, THE OTHER WEEK. IT TALKED ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE OF FREE SPEECH AND WHY WE NEED TO HARNESS DISSENT AND NOT TUCK IT AWAY TIDILY. THE AMOUNT OF BLOW-BACK I GOT FROM WRITING THAT ARTICLE FROM PEOPLE WHO FOUND IT DEEPLY OFFENSIVE THAT I WOULD DEFEND SUCH A RIGHT, IT SHOCKED ME. SO I THINK WE'RE HEADING DOWN A TRAJECTORY WHERE THE SCOPE OF GOVERNMENT REGULATION OF EXPRESSION IS EXPANDING AT THE SAME TIME THAT THE SCOPE OF WHAT WE CAN ACTUALLY SAY IS NARROWING. AND THAT'S THE DIRECTION THAT I'M REALLY WORRIED ABOUT.

Steve says DANIEL, LET'S SEE IF WE CAN CLARIFY ANOTHER ANGLE ON THIS THING, AND THAT IS THE MINISTER AND THE BILL'S SUPPORTERS POINT OUT THAT THIS BILL IS NOT INTENDED TO REGULATE INDIVIDUAL USERS BUT ONLY THE PLATFORMS THAT THEY USE. IS THAT A RELEVANT ARGUMENT, IN YOUR BOOKS?

Daniel says I THINK SO. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, CAROLINE IS NOT SUGGESTING THIS, BUT JUST TO EXPAND MAYBE A LITTLE BIT FACETIOUSLY ON HER COMMENT. THIS IS NOT ABOUT RESTORING HEREDITARY MONARCHY OR GOVERNING WHAT PEOPLE CAN SAY, THIS ISN'T A BILL ABOUT SPEECH, IT'S WHETHER THE BROADCASTING ACT APPLIES TO COMPANIES LIKE YouTube FOR THEIR ACTIONS. SO WHEN WE LOOK AT WHAT THE BROADCASTING ACT DOES FOR BROADCASTERS RIGHT NOW, IT ALLOWS THE CRTC TO COMPEL THEM TO FINANCE CANADIAN CONTENT OR SPEND A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MONEY ON CANADIAN CONTENT. THIS IDEA OF DISCOVERABILITY... IT'S KIND OF LIKE A SUPERMARKET. IMAGINE IF YOU'RE WALKING DOWN THE AISLE AND THEY SAY, YOU HAVE TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, DORITOS, FOR EXAMPLE, AVAILABLE TO PEOPLE. THEY DON'T HAVE TO BUY THEM BUT THEY JUST HAVE TO BE THERE. MAYBE ON YouTube'S HOME PAGE, THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE A LITTLE BIT ABOUT CONTENT FROM CANADIAN CREATORS. THAT DOESN'T LIMIT WHAT PEOPLE CAN SAY OR EVEN WHAT PEOPLE WILL WATCH OR CHOOSE, IT ACTUALLY EXPANDS CHOICE. THIS IS NOT A BILL ABOUT SPEECH. IT'S JUST NOT. IT'S A BILL ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT, TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY ENGAGE IN BROADCASTING ACTIVITY, THESE TRILLION DOLLAR AMERICAN COMPANIES CAN BE SUBJECT TO THE BROADCASTING ACT LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE, WHICH IS NOT ABOUT SPEECH, IT'S NOT ABOUT TELLING THEM HOW TO DO BUSINESS, AND IN FACT THIS BILL HAS AS ONE OF ITS OBJECTIVES TO PROVIDE THE CRTC WITH MORE FLEXIBILITY, MORE TOOLS SO THAT IT'S NOT ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL, SO IT'S NOT BROADCAST LICENSING IN THE OLD VEIN. EVERYONE KEEPS TALKING ABOUT HOW BROADCASTING HAS CHANGED A LOT SINCE 1991. YOU KNOW WHAT HAS CHANGED AS WELL? THE INTERNET. PEOPLE KEEP TALKING ABOUT THIS AS THOUGH IT'S THE INTERNET OF 1994. THIS IS THE PUBLIC SQUARE... I KEEP HEARING THIS... IT'S THE MOST PRIVATE SQUARE EVER. YOU PICK UP YOUR ANDROID PHONE, DO A GOOGLE SEARCH, IT GETS YOU TO A YouTube VIDEO AND YOU SEND TO YOUR FRIENDS ON WHATSAPP. ALL THOSE COMPANIES ARE OWNED BY GOOGLE AND FACEBOOK. THEY'RE ALREADY GOVERNING WHAT YOU CAN AND CANNOT SAY WITH NO DEMOCRATIC STRICTURES ON WHAT IS APPROPRIATE OR NOT. AND THIS IS NOT ABOUT SPEECH IN THE FIRST PLACE. IT'S ABOUT CONTRIBUTIONS, IT'S ABOUT MAKING SURE THERE'S SPACE FOR CANADIAN CREATORS IN CERTAIN CASES, IT'S ABOUT WHETHER THE BROADCASTING ACT, WHICH IS NOT A SPEECH AND CENSORSHIP ACT AND NEVER HAS BEEN, WOULD APPLY TO THE COUNTRY'S LARGEST BROADCASTER. SO FOR US TO SAY DO WE CARE ABOUT FREE SPEECH OR NOT? OF COURSE WE CARE ABOUT FREE SPEECH. THIS BILL IS NOT ABOUT SPEECH. IT'S NOT ABOUT WHAT YOU CAN AND CAN'T SAY. THE GOVERNMENT HAS SAID THEY MIGHT INTRODUCE SOME BILLS AROUND ONLINE HARMS AND THINGS IN THE FUTURE AND THAT'S CONTENTIOUS AND WE CAN GET INTO THAT, BUT THAT'S NOT THIS. THIS IS ABOUT WHETHER THE BROADCASTING ACT APPLIES TO CANADA'S LARGEST BROADCASTERS. THAT'S IT. IF WE GET DOWN THIS FREE SPEECH RABBIT HOLE WE ARE DISCUSSING AN IMAGINARY PROBLEM WHICH IS NOT IN THE BILL AT ALL.

Steve says I THINK NAVNEET AGREES WITH YOU TO THIS EXTENT. HE HAS WRITTEN THAT THE RIGHT TO BE ON FACEBOOK ISN'T JUST ABOUT BEING ABLE TO SPEAK, IT'S ABOUT THE RIGHT TO BE AMPLIFIED. NAVNEET, MAYBE YOU COULD TELL US WHAT YOU MEANT BY THAT.

Navneet says WELL, MAYBE I COULD ANSWER THAT JUST SORT OF BY RESPONDING TO DANIEL A LITTLE BIT, IS THAT I'M NOT ENTIRELY CONVINCED THAT A BILL THAT POTENTIALLY CHANGES WHAT YOU SEE ON YouTube ISN'T ACTUALLY ABOUT SPEECH. AND THE REASON THAT I SAY THAT IS THAT, AS I SORT OF MENTIONED BEFORE, BECAUSE THE CONTENT THAT WE SEE ONLINE IS DETERMINED BY ALGORITHMS, ONCE YOU START TO REGULATE DISCOVERABILITY, YOU START TO REGULATE WHAT PEOPLE CAN SEE. IN THE ABSTRACT, IT IS TRUE THAT, YES, THAT INCREASES CHOICE. YES, YOU CAN GO LOOK AT SOMETHING ELSE. NOBODY IS COMPELLING YOU TO CLICK ON SOMETHING. BUT IN THE KIND OF CONTEMPORARY ERA OF WHAT WE CALL SORT OF THE ATTENTION ECONOMY, WHERE ATTENTION IS A RESOURCE. WE ALL HAVE A LIMITED AMOUNT OF ATTENTION, A LIMITED AMOUNT OF TIME, AND THEN THERE IS WAY TOO MUCH CONTENT FOR ONE PERSON TO EVER SORT OF WRAP THEIR HEAD AROUND. WHAT IT IS YOU ARE EXPOSED TO THROUGH ALLEGE RITHMENTS OR THROUGH CHOICES MADE BY THESE PRIVATE AMERICAN COMPANIES DOES SORT OF DETERMINE WHAT EXISTS OR WHAT IS SORT OF PRIORITIZED WITHIN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN OF WHAT WE CONSIDER TO BE, YOU KNOW, SPEECH OR WHAT WE CONSIDER TO BE IN THE PUBLIC ARENA. AND SO WHEN I SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, QUESTIONS OF SPEECH ARE ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, IN THE INTERNET ERA, ARE ACTUALLY QUESTIONS OF AMPLIFICATION, I MEAN THAT IT'S THE PREDOMINANCE OF ALGORITHMS, WHICH IS TO SAY THESE SORT OF VERY COMPLICATED, YOU KNOW, PIECES OF SOFTWARE THAT MAKE DECISIONS, THAT I THINK ARE ACTUALLY THE ISSUE AT HAND.

Steve says WELL, THAT DOES RAISE A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION IN MY HEAD FOR CAROLINE, WHICH IS: DO OUR TRADITIONAL IDEAS OF FREE SPEECH NEED TO CHANGE WHEN WE APPARENTLY CROSS THIS BOUNDARY FROM AN ANALOGUE WORLD TO A DIGITAL WORLD?

Caroline says I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT... AND I SHOULD BE CLEAR. I'M NOT FUNDAMENTALLY AGAINST REGULATING BIG TECH BUT I THINK WE NEED TO BE SMART ABOUT IT AND I DON'T THINK THAT THIS BILL IS SMART. LOOK AT FRANCE AND AUSTRALIA, FOR EXAMPLE, AND TRADITIONAL MEDIA. THEY RECOGNIZED THE NEGATIVE IMPACT THAT FACEBOOK AND TWITTER HAVE HAD AND THEY'RE ENFORCING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS. AND I HEARD WHEN YOU TALKED ABOUT CALLING FOR TRANSPARENCY ON ALGORITHMS AND THAT SORT OF THING. THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME. BUT WHEN YOU'RE DELVING INTO A WORLD WHERE WHAT PEOPLE CAN SEE, WHAT OPINIONS THEY'RE EXPOSED TO, WHICH ULTIMATELY SHAPE THEIR OWN OPINIONS, ARE REGULATED BY GOVERNMENT, IT DOES RAISE SOME QUESTIONS. SO DOES OUR NOTION OF FREE SPEECH NEED TO CHANGE IN THIS NEW WORLD THAT WE'RE IN? I THINK IT DOES BECAUSE OF THE POINTS THAT NAVNEET RAISES. IT'S NOT JUST WHAT WE CAN SAY, TO HIS POINT, IT'S WHAT WE ACTUALLY SEE AND HOW OUR OPINIONS ARE SHAPED. AND GAINING A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THAT IS CRUCIAL, I THINK, IF WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO MANAGE THESE ISSUES AS THEY COME FORWARD.

Steve says WE'RE DOWN TO OUR LAST FEW MINUTES HERE. DANIEL, MAYBE I CAN COME AT THIS SORT OF FROM A DIFFERENT DIRECTION. WE NOW KNOW THAT C-10 IS ON HOLD FOR THE MOMENT. IF C-10 SOMEHOW IN THIS MAELSTROM OF POLITICS THAT IT'S NOW ENGAGED IN GETS DRAMATICALLY WATERED DOWN OR THE GOVERNMENT... I MEAN, I SUPPOSE IT'S NOT BEYOND THE PALE, THE GOVERNMENT MIGHT DECIDE TO PULL THE BILL IN AN ELECTION YEAR AND SAY, "WE CAN'T HANDLE THIS KIND OF HEAT RIGHT NOW." WHAT WOULD BE LOST, IN YOUR VIEW?

Daniel says WELL, WHAT WOULD BE LOST IS THAT PEOPLE WHO SAY THAT THE BROADCASTING ENVIRONMENT OF 1991 SHOULD NOT APPLY TO THE MEDIA ECOSYSTEM OF TODAY WOULD BE STUCK WITH THE BROADCASTING REGULATION OF 1991, WITH NO OPPORTUNITY TO MODERNIZE IT FOR THE CURRENT ECOSYSTEM. BUT I NEED TO COME BACK TO THIS POINT THAT CAROLINE IS RAISING ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT INTERVENING ABOUT WHAT OPINIONS YOU CAN AND CANNOT SEE. FOR US TO SAY THAT THERE HAS TO BE AN AVAILABILITY OF CANADIAN CONTENT... FOR EXAMPLE, THIS SHOW... HAS NO BEARING ON THE CONTENTS OF THAT SHOW. IN OTHER WORDS, IT DOESN'T SAY YOU HAVE TO SHOW PEOPLE WHO SAY X OR Y. IT SIMPLY SAYS THERE NEEDS TO BE ACCESS TO CANADIAN CREATORS AND CONVERSATIONS. WHAT THEY SAY IS NOT AT ALL, YOU KNOW, PROSCRIBED. AND SO WE'RE GETTING INTO THIS, YOU KNOW, FREE SPEECH DEBATE. WHAT NAVNEET IS TALKING ABOUT, ABOUT, YOU KNOW, RECOMMENDATIONS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THESE ARE FAIR COMMENTS. BUT CAROLINE RAISED A GOOD POINT ABOUT AUSTRALIA. AUSTRALIA HAS REQUIRED COMPANIES LIKE GOOGLE AND FACEBOOK TO PAY FOR NEWS. SOME OF THE PEOPLE IN CANADA WHO ARE OPPOSING BILL C-10 RIGHT NOW CALLKoè THAT A LINK TAX. EVEN THOUGH IT IS NOT CHARGED ON LINKS AND IT'S NOT A TAX THAT GOES TO THE GOVERNMENT. THIS IS THE KIND OF MISLEADING LANGUAGE FROM PEOPLE WHO DON'T WANT THE LAW TO APPLY TO THE INTERNET AT ALL. WE HAD THE NETFLIX TAX, WHICH WAS ACTUALLY JUST SALES TAX BUT WAS MEANT TO SOUND LIKE IT WAS SOME PUNITIVE PENALTY AGAINST NETFLIX. THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BROADER WORLD VIEWS ABOUT HOW THE INTERNET SHOULD WORK. I'M NOT SAYING THIS IS CAROLINE. BUT THEY ARE DRIVING THIS CONSIDERATION AND THEY HAVE OTHER OBJECTIVES. BILL C-10 HAS MANY, MANY PROBLEMS. AN INFRINGEMENT ON FREE SPEECH OR A RISK OF GOVERNMENT DICTATING WHAT YOU SHOULD THINK OR SEE IS NOT AMONG THEM.

Steve says CAROLINE, WE'RE DOWN TO OUR LAST MINUTE. LET ME GIVE IT TO YOU TO RESPOND.

Caroline says WELL, I THINK THAT WHAT WE NEED TO DO, GIVEN THE INCREDIBLY DELICATE BALANCE BETWEEN FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND ENSURING OTHER VALUES ARE REFLECTED, LIKE CANADIAN CONTENT OR LIKE SECURITY OF THE PERSON, THOSE KINDS OF THINGS, IT IS... WE NEED TO LOOK AT EVERY SINGLE POTENTIAL INCURSION INTO THAT BALANCE VERY, VERY CLOSELY. SO FOR PEOPLE TO SAY THERE'S NOTHING TO SEE HERE, I DON'T THINK THAT'S TRUE. THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THE BILL DOES ALLOW USER-GENERATED CONTENT TO BE SUBJECTED TO CRTC OVERSIGHT. WHAT THAT MEANS IS POLLS BY REGULAR CANADIANS ARE SUBJECT TO CRTC OVERSIGHT, THE GOVERNMENT REGULATORY BODY. THAT NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT. IT'S NOT ALARMIST TO SUGGEST THAT WE NEED TO BE CONSIDERING IT IN TERMS OF ITS CONSEQUENCES FOR SOME FUNDAMENTAL THINGS THAT WE REQUIRE FOR OUR DEMOCRACY TO WORK IN THIS COUNTRY, AND THAT INCLUDES FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION. SO I DON'T THINK IT'S UNFAIR TO RAISE THOSE ISSUES. IN FACT IT'S CRUCIAL THAT WE DO.

The caption changes to "Producer: Wodek Szemberg, @wodekszemberg."

Steve says AND I'M DELIGHTED THE THREE OF YOU AGREED TO COME ON TO THE AGENDA TONIGHT AND HAVE THIS CONVERSATION. CAROLINE ELLIOTT IN VANCOUVER, NAVNEET ALANG AND DANIEL BERNHARD IN TORONTO, GREAT TO HAVE ALL THREE OF YOU ON TVO TONIGHT. STAY SAFE, AND THANKS SO MUCH.

Caroline says THANK YOU.

Navneet says THANKS SO MUCH, STEVE.

Daniel says THANKS.

Watch: Would Taming Big Tech Curtail Democracy?