The federal government is proposing a new system for regulating harmful online content, including takedown requirements for social media platforms like Facebook and YouTube, the appointment of a new commissioner to enforce the rules, and new powers for security agencies.

On Thursday, Canadian Heritage launched a two-month consultation on the proposal, with legislation to follow in the fall. It comes two years after the Liberals promised new rules to limit the spread of hate speech, violent extremism and criminal content online, and as rumours abound of an impending election.  

Here’s what you need to know:

How we got here: In May 2019, the Liberal government unveiled its digital charter, a set of 10 high-level principles for digital governance, including an expectation that “digital platforms will not foster or disseminate hate, violent extremism or criminal content.” Post-election, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau tasked newly appointed Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault with implementing new rules for social media platforms, including 24-hour takedown provisions—and, more vaguely, with taking steps to combat online hate and extremism. 

The proposal unveiled Thursday is part of a package of moves targeting tech giants that also includes the beleaguered Bill C-10, which focuses on streaming services, as well as digital-services and sales-tax measures. Last month, Justice Minister David Lametti introduced a separate bill to amend human rights legislation to include online hate speech.

What it covers: A future law would apply to five categories of posts: hate speech, terrorist content, incitements to violence, intimate images shared non-consensually and child sexual exploitation. 

Who’s affected: Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Twitter and YouTube are in. So is Pornhub, which the government has been under public and parliamentary pressure to regulate following reports—including from The Logic—about its content-moderation practices. They’ll all be covered by a new definition of what constitutes an “online communication-service provider” —basically, any platform that lets users talk to each other over the internet, in public view. While the legislation would apply to all platforms that meet the definition, regardless of the size of their user base, the new commissioner would be able to tailor what it expects a platform to do to comply with the regulations based on its number of users, business model and financial resources.   

Telecommunications companies are definitely excluded, though, as are private messaging apps; at a technical briefing Thursday, Canadian Heritage officials presented a deck that cited WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger as examples. Platforms like Uber and Peloton that have some communications features, but whose main service is something else, are also exempt.

How it works: After a user flags a post, the host platform would have 24 hours to remove it from public view in Canada if it falls into one of the proscribed buckets. They’d need to notify both poster and flagger about the decision, and let them challenge the call.

The platform would need to retain the content and associated metadata, however, in case it is ordered to turn it over to police or a security agency for further investigation. Cabinet would rule on what kinds of information the platforms would need to preserve, which could include subscriber details such as users’ real names and their physical and IP addresses.

Platforms would also be required to publish regular Canada-specific reports detailing how much content users have flagged, and how they’ve responded.

Who’ll enforce it: Ottawa plans to appoint a new digital-safety commissioner, who’d be able to conduct investigations and issue compliance orders. It will also set up the Digital Recourse Council of Canada, an appeals body that would serve as a sort of cross-platform supreme court for online content, for cases where a user isn’t satisfied with a company’s internal challenge mechanism. 

The government will also rope in the new Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal it’s planning to create under Bill C-11, its major update to federal privacy laws that’s stuck in the House of Commons. The tribunal will be able to fine platforms up to three per cent of gross global revenue—or up to $10 million, whatever’s higher—if they don’t follow the rules, fail to take harmful posts offline, or ignore the commissioner’s and council’s orders.

If a company has “repeatedly refused” to take down child-sexual-exploitation or terrorist content, the proposals envision an action of last resort: asking a court to order that internet service providers block access to the site in Canada. 

What the government is saying: In June, Guilbeault addressed the prospect of online harms legislation at the Banff World Media Festival. “Now, this is going to be controversial. People think that C-10 was controversial,” he reportedly said. “Wait till we table this legislation.” 

On Thursday, his office confirmed the new proposal is the “this” about which he was speaking. “Minister Guilbeault’s comments were in recognition that this is a complex subject, which affects everyone, especially equity-deserving communities, and requires that we solicit a wide range of opinions,” said press secretary Camille Gagné-Raynauld, noting that the government was seeking input from platforms, civil society groups and the public. “The technical discussion paper is an important step towards ensuring greater transparency and accountability in how social media platforms in Canada deal with types of harmful content.” 

What the platforms are saying: “We are taking the time to carefully review the proposed approach and associated technical documents released today,” said Lauren Skelly, a spokesperson for YouTube parent Google. “We will be submitting comments and continuing our ongoing dialogue with the government on this important file.” Twitter Canada declined to comment, and MindGeek didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Facebook has “Community Standards that govern what is and isn’t allowed on our platform and in most cases those standards go well beyond what’s required by law,” said spokesperson Alex Kucharski. “We agree that regulators should make clear rules for the Internet so private companies aren’t making these decisions on their own.”

What the experts are saying: “The unique reach and speed of online platforms to facilitate harm call for unique regulatory solutions, and this package puts forward many important elements to meaningfully tackle this challenge,” said Sam Andrey, director of policy and research at the Ryerson Leadership Lab, a think tank that co-runs the Cybersecure Policy Exchange research initiative. He noted that details of how in-scope platforms will be identified, and how regulators will handle private communications on apps with both public and private channels, still need to be determined. “This is an inherently complex challenge to ensure these changes do not unreasonably limit Canadians’ rights and freedoms,” he said.

The Canadian Internet Registration Authority’s research shows the public is “very concerned” about harmful online content, but also inappropriate takedowns, according to CEO Byron Holland. “The government is going to have to work hard to strike a balance here, and make sure the blunt hammer of internet censorship isn’t used when more effective and proportionate responses are available,” he said. “Internet users will need a simple process to dispute content takedowns that unfairly infringe their rights.”

This story has been updated with reaction.