On Wednesday, Premier Danielle Smith announced she'd been temporarily suspended from posting to Facebook. Her experience raises legitimate concerns about corporate interventions on freedom of expression. Beneath the surface, however, it raises even more concerns about the mindset of governments: “Citizens need to hear our messaging. But nothing more than our messaging.”. Smith Youtube ban .Premier Smith’s Facebook account was reinstated today. According to a screenshot posted to Premier Smith’s Twitter page, her account had been suspended for security reasons. Meanwhile, a spokesperson from Meta told CTV News that “[t]here were no restrictions placed on the Premier’s Page. One of the page’s administrators faced restrictions, but that did not impact the underlying page’s ability to post content.”.Whether “security” was the reason, Premier Smith suggested the suspension was an instance of censorship — a challenge to freedom of expression in Canada. Talking to Twitter, Premier Smith wrote, “Big tech and government censorship is becoming a danger to free speech around the world… As the premier of a province of 4.6 million Albertans, if they can prevent me from communicating with you, imagine what they can do to any one of us. Regardless of our political leanings, we must all stand against censorship.”.Big tech and government interventions on freedom of expression and access to information are indeed an issue in Canada. The House of Commons and the Senate recently passed Bill C-11, which grants the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission greater authority to regulate online content in Canada. The federal government is proposing further legislation, Bill C-18, that would require tech companies like Google or Facebook to compensate media organizations for news stories shared on their platforms. In response, Google and Meta are warning the federal government the ability of Canadians to view and share news on their platforms may be limited. This month, Facebook is testing restrictions that will prevent approximately 1.2 million Canadians from accessing Canadian news on their platforms. Google is testing restrictions that will prevent 1.1 million Canadians from accessing the same..Smith’s concerns are well-founded. Restrictions on freedom of, and access to, information appear to be hemming Canadians in from both federal and corporate quarters..Her concern is also one-sided and self-serving, however. While the temporary suspension impeded her ability as a democratically elected premier to communicate with her citizens, access to government messaging is not the only access that matters..According to an audit conducted by the Globe and Mail, the Government of Alberta did not fulfill a single freedom of information (FOI) request on its 2021 internal FOI fulfillment statistics. (For example, how many FOI requests to government ministries or departments had been granted full access, partial access, or no access altogether?) Alberta’s Information and Privacy Commissioner described the situation as “very unfortunate.”.The “hiddenness” of Alberta information stands out from every other province. It is clear, however, Canada has an access-to-information problem. Governments do not like to release information they can and should release for reasons ranging from the desire to avoid potential embarrassment or liability, to short-staffing, insufficient incentives, ignorance of the law and even to apathy about the law..Governments need to get their messaging out to citizens. Premier Smith is rightfully incensed corporations like Facebook would restrict her ability to communicate with the citizens of the province that elected her and her government. (Supposing, of course, that the motivation for the restriction truly was censorial.) But, access to information is not a one-way street. Canadians deserve to know about their governments; they deserve to know more than what their governments would like them to know..Smith should care more about the failure of her government to release Canadian information to Canadians than about a temporary restriction on one social media account. Does Smith care about freedom of expression, about access to information, and about safeguarding citizens from censorial corporations and governments?.Or does Smith care only about employing the admirable language of “free expression” and “access” to service the distribution of government narratives? Access to information principles must service both governments and government transparency..Luke Neilson is a Calgary writer.
On Wednesday, Premier Danielle Smith announced she'd been temporarily suspended from posting to Facebook. Her experience raises legitimate concerns about corporate interventions on freedom of expression. Beneath the surface, however, it raises even more concerns about the mindset of governments: “Citizens need to hear our messaging. But nothing more than our messaging.”. Smith Youtube ban .Premier Smith’s Facebook account was reinstated today. According to a screenshot posted to Premier Smith’s Twitter page, her account had been suspended for security reasons. Meanwhile, a spokesperson from Meta told CTV News that “[t]here were no restrictions placed on the Premier’s Page. One of the page’s administrators faced restrictions, but that did not impact the underlying page’s ability to post content.”.Whether “security” was the reason, Premier Smith suggested the suspension was an instance of censorship — a challenge to freedom of expression in Canada. Talking to Twitter, Premier Smith wrote, “Big tech and government censorship is becoming a danger to free speech around the world… As the premier of a province of 4.6 million Albertans, if they can prevent me from communicating with you, imagine what they can do to any one of us. Regardless of our political leanings, we must all stand against censorship.”.Big tech and government interventions on freedom of expression and access to information are indeed an issue in Canada. The House of Commons and the Senate recently passed Bill C-11, which grants the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission greater authority to regulate online content in Canada. The federal government is proposing further legislation, Bill C-18, that would require tech companies like Google or Facebook to compensate media organizations for news stories shared on their platforms. In response, Google and Meta are warning the federal government the ability of Canadians to view and share news on their platforms may be limited. This month, Facebook is testing restrictions that will prevent approximately 1.2 million Canadians from accessing Canadian news on their platforms. Google is testing restrictions that will prevent 1.1 million Canadians from accessing the same..Smith’s concerns are well-founded. Restrictions on freedom of, and access to, information appear to be hemming Canadians in from both federal and corporate quarters..Her concern is also one-sided and self-serving, however. While the temporary suspension impeded her ability as a democratically elected premier to communicate with her citizens, access to government messaging is not the only access that matters..According to an audit conducted by the Globe and Mail, the Government of Alberta did not fulfill a single freedom of information (FOI) request on its 2021 internal FOI fulfillment statistics. (For example, how many FOI requests to government ministries or departments had been granted full access, partial access, or no access altogether?) Alberta’s Information and Privacy Commissioner described the situation as “very unfortunate.”.The “hiddenness” of Alberta information stands out from every other province. It is clear, however, Canada has an access-to-information problem. Governments do not like to release information they can and should release for reasons ranging from the desire to avoid potential embarrassment or liability, to short-staffing, insufficient incentives, ignorance of the law and even to apathy about the law..Governments need to get their messaging out to citizens. Premier Smith is rightfully incensed corporations like Facebook would restrict her ability to communicate with the citizens of the province that elected her and her government. (Supposing, of course, that the motivation for the restriction truly was censorial.) But, access to information is not a one-way street. Canadians deserve to know about their governments; they deserve to know more than what their governments would like them to know..Smith should care more about the failure of her government to release Canadian information to Canadians than about a temporary restriction on one social media account. Does Smith care about freedom of expression, about access to information, and about safeguarding citizens from censorial corporations and governments?.Or does Smith care only about employing the admirable language of “free expression” and “access” to service the distribution of government narratives? Access to information principles must service both governments and government transparency..Luke Neilson is a Calgary writer.
