Key Takeaways: All Tech Is Human, McGill University, and the Consulate General of Canada in New York’s Participatory Democracy to Govern Big Tech: The Canadian Experience
By Elisa Fox
On September 14, All Tech Is Human, the Consulate General of Canada in New York, and McGill University’s Centre for Media, Technology and Democracy held the discussion “Participatory Democracy to Govern Big Tech: The Canadian Experience.” The session looked at Canada’s experience in developing legislation to address online harms, particularly through the Canadian Commission for Democratic Expression and Citizens’ Assemblies on Democratic Expression, in order to better understand participatory policy making and the role it can play in regulating existing and emerging technology in an inclusive manner.
Citizens’ Assemblies on Democratic Expression provided an avenue for inclusive, participatory policy making by giving the Canadian public an opportunity to provide recommendations on how to design legislative and regulatory frameworks to address online harms and protect user rights directly to policy makers. Assembly members were chosen through a civic lottery so that volunteers broadly matched the demographics of the jurisdiction they represent, balancing for gender, location, age groups, language, and indigenous communities. Panelists emphasized that assembly volunteers were everyday people who had been randomly selected. Attendance of the assembly deliberations - which were complimented by expert-led dialogue and research - by government officials provided assembly members with reassurance that their discussion and findings would be taken into account within the legislative process.
Panelists reflected on why they thought the Citizen Assemblies were able to reach consensus on many issues, even though public discourse makes issues such as content take down appear divisive. Establishing a set of shared values proved key by providing a common ground for volunteers to coalesce around. The values - thoughtful product building, data ownership, transparency and accountability, education, and freedom of expression - provided a structure for volunteers to consider institutional and legislative systems already in place that can address online harms as well as identify gaps. The ability for a wide group of diverse stakeholders to reach a consensus to provide detailed recommendations illustrates that the public is aware and concerned of the dangers of emerging tech and ready and willing to engage in in-depth, solutions-oriented dialogue.
The session provided key insights into participatory policy making to address online harms while also providing areas for further exploration.
Be inclusive: The Canadian Citizen Assemblies showed that inclusivity can allow for a diverse range of lived experiences to inform policy making, which can empower citizens and instill more trust in government. Having all stakeholders involved is critical to having regulations address harms politicians might not even be aware of as well as provide an ecosystem that fosters complementary efforts rather than duplicates or contradicts efforts.
Mobilize and educate the public: The public is looking for meaningful ways to engage on how technology is impacting society. Government should provide the public with avenues to participate in these debates as well as programs, such as digital literacy or accessibility, that enable everyone to come to the table with a shared knowledge base.
Consider local contexts: One size doesn’t necessarily fit all and regulatory efforts should be tailored. Replicating the laws from one country to another is not guaranteed to work, as exemplified by a lower court in California striking down the right to be forgotten, which is encoded in Canadian law. Many countries, especially those in the global majority, are already doing this by crafting national digital governance laws that address their national priorities while taking into consideration international laws and frameworks.
Learn from others: Canada has been able to take lessons learned from legislation in Europe and Australia and apply them to their legislative process. Similarly, countries looking to incorporate public input into regulatory changes can learn from other iterations. Documenting, sharing knowledge, and engaging in dialogue is central to sharing and building on lessons learned.