Open Media has weighed in on the new Online Harms bill. They called it a positive step forward.
One the lead up to the tabling of the Online Harms bill (Bill C-63), many had every reason to be worried. We are dealing with a government with a long track record of ignoring experts, treating all criticism as personal attacks, and ignoring any and all evidence that disagrees with them. What’s more, we have two bills that are wreaking havoc on the internet world.
Yet, somehow, when the bill was tabled, for the first time ever when it comes to an internet related issue, it really did seem like the government had finally listened. As we found with our analysis, a lot of the problematic provisions found in the 2021 version of the bill had been removed. This includes ISP level blocking, vague definitions of what “harmful content” is, 24 hour removals, every website scoped into the legislation, and $10 million fines for non-compliance.
This, of course, isn’t to say the legislation is problem free by any means, but it is a marked improvement over the 2021 version. Now that it has been a few days, there has been responses from other organizations starting to roll in. One such organization offering a reaction is Open Media. They called the new version a positive step forward:
“Bill C-63 is a night and day improvement to the government’s previous plans for regulating harmful online content,” said OpenMedia’s Executive Director Matt Hatfield. “Many of the worst 2021 surveillance and censorship ideas are gone, and in their place we’re seeing a more thoughtful, calibrated approach. But today is a start, not the endpoint. Over the days ahead, we’ll be giving C-63 a close reading to identify remaining problems and ensure they are addressed in the amendment process.”
“Harsh but constructive criticism has had a deeply positive impact on this bill,” continued Hatfield. “And the government deserves credit for responding with a thorough rework before introducing Bill C-63. We hope this thoughtful approach continues through the amendment process, with our leaders continuing to take seriously the complex trade-offs and risks that must be managed by legislation this sensitive.”
The 2021 white paper proposal garnered extensive criticism for problematic provisions such as requiring 24-hour takedowns for all regulated content, automatic direct reporting of removed content to law enforcement agencies like CSIS and the RCMP, and inappropriately grouping vastly different types of harmful content under the same regulatory response.
After the paper was heavily critiqued, the government convened a 12-person expert advisory group and held a series of national consultations on online harms, ending in a “What We Heard” report on their findings in 2022. Visible progress on a revised harmful content proposal was slow in 2023, leading to demands from some experts and groups for more urgent action. But groups have also continued to caution against repeating 2021’s mistakes, with 13 civil society groups issuing a 2023 statement on principles harms legislation must not violate.
The organization says that they will be publishing more details moving forward as they give a closer examination of the bill. So, it’ll be interesting to see what crops up for them at least. Either way, we are seeing a growing positive reaction from the legislation with the continued theme of this being a positive improvement over the previous bill.
Drew Wilson on Twitter: @icecube85 and Facebook.
