We commend the federal Justice Minister for progress with Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act. However, granting any government agent warrantless search and seizure powers also needs review
https://t.co/PRLVcxJRvv
#BillC63#OnlineHarms#PrivacyMatters#cdnpoli#DigitalLiteracy
Why are youth hesitant to trust online saftey reporting systems? Because it can take up to 2-3 months later with no assistance. Meanwhile, posting the issue on social media about safety and legal concerns can receive responses quickly.
This is an excerpt from a 2023 court case.
The teens at high schools we work with find this law very captivating, given the challenges of intimate image sharing among students. They also find it very accessible to make CRT claims online without going to court.
Protecting people online is a priority for our government
The new legal process is protecting people.
A B.C. man was awarded $5,000 in first-of-its-kind intimate image case
Sharing someone’s intimate images without consent is wrong & could cost you
https://t.co/TQDrmdjDWa
This is why a school phone ban won’t stop youth from experiencing online harms. BYOD poses challenges for corporate network security due to loss of control, and the same applies to schools.
From the front page of the @TorontoStar, @krushowy with exclusive news about Education Minister @Sflecce’s plan to strictly limit the use of cellphones in schools. Ontario would have the toughest curbs in Canada.
#onpoli
https://t.co/G7McH9k40y
@robertbenzie@krushowy@TorontoStar@Sflecce I've seen students use Google Docs to harass each other. Not sure how this would prevent that. While a policy of no phone use in class without teacher direction is great, justifying full bans can be more challenging.
@CatherineJHogan@privacylawyer@CJAD800 What sets YouTube apart is its lack of messaging. However, the comment section can often become quite harmful. Then why is TikTok listed? Harmful DM’s are not the primary concern discussed. It's mostly about addiction, bad videos, and addiction.
@CatherineJHogan@privacylawyer@CJAD800 Perhaps it would be more effective to pursue individual lawsuits against each platform rather than making broad claims about social media as a whole and selectively targeting certain sites, considering that each platform serves different functions and may have varying impacts.
@privacylawyer@CatherineJHogan@CJAD800 Curious about why YouTube hasn't been named in the lawsuit or, at the very least, reported on. According to Pew "Teens, Social Media, and Technology 2023" report, YouTube is not only more popular but also more compulsively used than some of the apps that have been mentioned.
Many things have the potential to harm while offering benefits to others. Nicotine and casino-type gambling offer limited universal benefits compared to their harms. Pharmaceutical drugs add complexity, while social media poses even greater challenges.
While I wish the government and other organizations luck in proving measurable and predictable harms caused by social media in court, I do believe that the general arguments lack some substance. There seem to be quite a few plot holes in the arguments presented.
While I wish the government and other organizations luck in proving measurable and predictable harms caused by social media in court, I do believe that the general arguments lack some substance. There seem to be quite a few plot holes in the arguments presented.
Moreover, it seems that only casino-type gambling is rigorously regulated for potential harms. Items like Pokémon card packs, video game loot boxes, and Kinder Surprise products with a surprise mechanic don't appear to raise significant concerns.
Comparing harms in gambling and social media is complex, but I'm open to more evidence. In gambling, few benefit while all others lose. Yet, with social media, the balance of benefits versus harms varies.
This is why comparing the harms of social media to pharmaceutical and nicotine companies diverges. While the chemical harms are more predictable, assessing the mental wellness aspect is more complex.
I would suggest that it's best to compare the harms of social media to those of gambling and the regulations surrounding it. In my opinion, this comparison provides the closest parallel and serves as a relevant example.
Arguing that social media is harmful solely because it's addictive or promotes compulsive behaviours isn't compelling enough. Attempting to rationalize a the universal harm is needed but challenging.
Suing social media for "addiction" appears to lack coherence. Seemingly addictive items (caffeine & sugar), are considered normative until evidence of harm arises. It's crucial to outline specific harms rather than merely focusing on the notion of addiction.