SoVote

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Jun/7/24 10:27:41 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the NDP finds that the government delayed introduction of this bill for far too long. We want it to be referred to committee for a comprehensive study. There are some parts that we fully support. There are others that deal with the Criminal Code, for example, that will truly require a comprehensive study in committee. We have to make sure we take the time that is needed. That being said, the bill is missing certain aspects, which is a bit surprising. I am talking about transparency with respect to algorithms. As the minister knows, hate and other such things are often amplified by algorithms that promote the kind of content that adversely affects people. This is not being addressed in the bill. I would like the minister to tell us why this important aspect of algorithms and transparency is not being addressed so that we can determine precisely why some hateful content or harmful content is promoted on certain platforms.

162 words

Context: House Hansard - 327 - Jun/7/24

Hon. Arif Virani

Jun/7/24 10:29:18 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to note that the time it took to promulgate this bill and bring it here before the House for debate was directly related to the consultations we held around the world. That is why it took four years to prepare this bill. Also, with respect to the transparency of social media and platforms, I would like to note three specific points. First, the bill specifically seeks to enable the digital safety commissioner to authorize academic researchers to access data anonymously to verify what is happening on platforms with their own algorithms. Second, the digital safety commissioner will be responsible for ensuring that the platforms actually follow the digital safety plan. Third, every user can run their own algorithm to inform platforms that some content is harmful and to prevent content from a specific author from appearing on their feed. We are therefore broadening many aspects related to algorithm transparency. If other measures should be taken, I am quite willing to consider amendments that are presented in good faith in committee on how to improve transparency on this front.

182 words

Context: House Hansard - 327 - Jun/7/24

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Jun/7/24 10:58:51 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's hard work in terms of tackling issues like harassment and the distribution of non-consensual images; she is very sincere in this regard. The member has flagged the issue of resources; the bill is unclear as to what the government would actually provide in terms of resources. I do note this has been an ongoing problem over the last 20 years with cutbacks to law enforcement. The member notes as well the impact of big tech. I wanted her to comment on a substantial missing piece in the legislation around algorithm transparency, which is currently before the U.S. Congress, and needs to be addressed absolutely. Big tech companies often promote non-consensual images through their algorithms and hate through their algorithms without any sort of oversight or responsibility. How does the member feel about that missing piece?

145 words

Context: House Hansard - 327 - Jun/7/24

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Jun/7/24 12:26:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as usual, I listened to my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît's speech with great interest. There is one aspect of the bill that I see as a major flaw, specifically the fact that children are often profoundly harmed by hateful content promoted by secret algorithms, yet there is nothing in this bill about algorithm transparency. Does my colleague agree that the big digital platforms, the web giants, should be responsible for disclosing the algorithms they use? These algorithms amplify hate speech, which is often extremely harmful to children.

93 words

Context: House Hansard - 327 - Jun/7/24

Mr. Peter Julian

Jun/7/24 1:06:18 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, certainly, but what I am saying is with regard to the rigorous examination of this at the committee stage. When I say “quickly”, I am not talking about, in any way, short-circuiting the important work of committee. That needs to happen. One of the major concerns I have seen, as the member points out, is that we have identified content that harms a child but the problem is that, because algorithms are not touched by this, and algorithm transparency is not touched by the bill, it could well mean closing the barn door after the horse has already left, and that the despicable content that harms a child has been promoted widely by algorithms. It is then ultimately taken out of circulation. However, with the algorithms, it is amplified so quickly and to such a huge extent that this is, I would suggest, a major shortfall in the bill. The U.S. Congress is considering legislation around algorithm transparency. I have a bill in front of the House on algorithm transparency. The reality is we cannot act quickly to save a child if the algorithms have already promoted that harmful content everywhere. That is a major concern and a major shortfall, I believe, in this legislation.

211 words