Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
AI and Canada's proposed Online Harms Act
In this episode of GZERO AI, Taylor Owen, professor at the Max Bell School of Public Policy at McGill University and director of its Centre for Media, Technology & Democracy, takes at a look at the Canadian government’s Online Harms Act, which seeks to hold social media companies responsible for harmful content – often generated by artificial intelligence.
So last week, the Canadian government tabled their long-awaited Online Harms legislation. Similar to the Digital Services Act in the EU., this is a big sweeping piece of legislation, so I won't get into all the details. But essentially what it does is it puts the onus on social media companies to minimize the risk of their products. But in so doing, this bill actually provides a window in how we might start regulate AI.
It does this in two ways. First, the bill requires platforms to minimize the risk of exposure to seven types of harmful content, including self-harm content directed to kids or posts that incite hatred or violence. The key here is the obligation is on social media platforms, like Facebook or Instagram or TikTok, to minimize the risk of their products, not to take down every piece of bad content. The concern is not with all of the each individual pieces of content, but the way that social media products and particularly their algorithms might amplify or help target its distribution. And these products are very often driven by AI.
Second, one area where the proposed law does mandate a takedown of content is when it comes to intimate image abuse, and that includes deepfakes or content that's created by AI. If an intimate image is flagged as non-consensual, even if it's created by AI, it needs to be taken down within 24 hours by the platform. Even in a vacuum, AI generated deepfake pornography or revenge porn is deeply problematic. But what's really worrying is when these things are shared and amplified online. And to get at that element of this problem, we don't actually need to regulate the creation of these deepfakes, we need to regulate the social media that distributes them.
So countries around the world are struggling with how to regulate something as opaque and unknown as the existential risk of AI, but maybe that's the wrong approach. Instead of trying to govern this largely undefined risk, maybe we should be watching for countries like Canada who are starting with the harms we already know about.
Instead of broad sweeping legislation for AI, we might want to start with regulating the older technologies, like social media platforms that facilitate many of the harms that AI creates.
I'm Taylor Owen and thanks for watching.
- When AI makes mistakes, who can be held responsible? ›
- Taylor Swift AI images & the rise of the deepfakes problem ›
- Ian Bremmer: On AI regulation, governments must step up to protect our social fabric ›
- AI regulation means adapting old laws for new tech: Marietje Schaake ›
- EU AI regulation efforts hit a snag ›
- Online violence means real-world danger for women in politics - GZERO Media ›
- Social media's AI wave: Are we in for a “deepfakification” of the entire internet? - GZERO Media ›
Sen. Mitt Romney on DC dysfunction, Russian attacks, and banning TikTok
There's a lot of kicking and screaming going on these days in Washington. Utah Senator Mitt Romney, a throwback from another era of US politics, has a message for the rabble-rousers on both sides: pipe down.
That means stop thinking it's okay to risk a US default, race-bait to win the Republican presidential primary, abandon Ukraine, or poke China over Taiwan.
On GZERO World, the former Republican presidential candidate sits down for an exclusive interview with Ian Bremmer to talk debt ceiling drama, Ukraine war fatigue, and pondering war with China. He also has thoughts on the "woke-ism" debate and whether the US should ban TikTok.
And in case you're wondering, Romney says that no, he doesn't have classified docs stashed at his pad.
- Be very scared of AI + social media in politics ›
- Is Putin still Soviet? Wrong question ›
- The Graphic Truth: As US arms Taiwan, China arms itself ›
- Romney: "We're not as militarily ready as we would like" in the Pacific ›
- Podcast: Mitt Romney on uncharted US waters, Russian malevolence, & China’s economic ambition ›
- Senator Mitt Romney on Tiktok: shut it down - GZERO Media ›
- Will the US default on its debt? Ask GZERO World's guests - GZERO Media ›
- Mitt Romney will be defined by opposing Trump - GZERO Media ›
Elon Musk wants a way out of Twitter
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: Hi everybody. Ian Bremmer here. A Merry Christmas to you all. A happy Hanukkah, just kicked off. Happy holidays to everybody. I'm delighted to close out the year with a Quick Take, getting us kicked off this rather cold, blustery, very bright sunny day in New York. Hence the sweater, it feels like a layered kind of day. And with everyone talking about the meltdown that is occurring every day on Twitter, I might as well weigh in.
Most recently, Elon Musk, the owner, the CEO, not the founder of Twitter, asking everyone online should I step down as CEO saying, "I will abide by the results of this poll." The answer 57.5% saying yes, 42.5% say no. They want him to step down. Probably a lot of Tesla shareholders weighing in on that. Let's not pretend that this is in any way a real or useful poll. You can of course, vote all you want with your burner and your fake accounts. What happens if the 12 hours of the poll happen to be 12 hours when you are mostly sleeping, depending on what your time zone is around the world? Well, you are kind of out of luck. I mean, you snooze, you lose. That's what they say. Not to mention the bot problem, and all of the people on Twitter that aren't really Twitter, they aren't really people. Of course, they get to vote too. It's all performative. Of course, Rasmussen had Elon ahead by four, and they turned out to be a little bit wrong, but that happens frequently.
No. Look, clearly, he wants a way out, otherwise, he wouldn't be posting something like this. And it seems like a good idea. I mean, my God, this guy is the CEO of three different major corporations. I'm the founder of one that's considerably smaller, and I'm not CEO because I understand that if you actually want to focus on the things that you're good at, in my case understanding global affairs, you can't also run a company at the same time. Now, look, maybe Elon has extraordinary energy and focus, and Lord knows he's an incredible entrepreneur, but running three separate companies, one of which you didn't found and you don't understand the inside of, as opposed to the other two, where he really does understand the nuts and bolts and the substance of it incredibly well, is clearly a bridge way, way, way too far. He's just surrounded by too many people that won't tell him no or are incapable of telling him no or just blowing sunshine up his ass. And that means you're much more likely to make bad decisions and deciding to run Twitter as clearly one of them.
Tesla stock is down some 60% from the highs. I saw it bounced, I think it was 5% when the Twitter poll results came in, because as I said in the opening, those are people that really want him back focusing on a world-changing corporation, which is kind of a big deal. I do think, by the way, that there's a very, very serious free speech problem out there, including on Twitter. But I don't think that's an Elon problem. I think that's a business model problem. That's a social media problem. That is a problem that comes from privately owned platforms, where the people that participate are the product. The only way you make money is by maximizing the time that is being spent by the product on the platform. So you can sell that product and sell that data to advertisers and other corporations.
That is not a model that in any way would promote free speech. In fact, in many ways, it's antithetical to free speech. The A/B testing that needs to happen on those platforms is about how do you addict the product? How do you ensure that the product spends more time on those platforms? Also, how do you bolster those platforms, even if it's not with people? So you're not incented to verify your accounts, you're not incented to take bots out because that artificially inflates your numbers and improves the output, improves the business model. None of which is good for free speech.
Now, I do think that Twitter's gotten a little worse since Elon has taken over, in part because check marks no longer really mean anything. It used to be that a checkmark was a sign that whoever it was that was in charge of moderation in Twitter believed that you were a public figure of note, meaning a celebrity or an expert or a corporation or whatnot, but it had some level of importance. It was a quick pneumonic that you could use to say, oh, I should pay more attention to this. Now, today, having a check mark either means that, which is again far from an ideal way of determining who's important or not, but it at least is an explainer. It can also mean, no, you just paid $8 and you could be absolutely anybody to have your Twitter blue. The only way you figure that out is if you go and click a second time to see which it actually reflects. Of course, that is something that most people aren't going to do and even if you do do it, it's after you've already gotten that internal sense that, oh, I should pay more attention. So that makes this less efficient as a platform.
Also, a lot more ads are showing up and you don't know it's an ad until at the bottom when you see promoted by. So again, the first experience you have is, oh, this is content I want to see and then you find out it's not really content you want to see. So I think at the margins, it's gotten a little bit less product friendly over the last four or five weeks, but the free speech experience is largely the same from my perspective. I will say it was kind of cool that Taylor Lorenz was suspended for 12 hours since people got enormously excited about that. Not at least of which was Taylor Lorenz. But okay, that's, that's a cheap thrill for those of you that are on social media. It's not seriously exciting or meaningful.
Nor am I expecting government intervention to matter. I think it's entirely too difficult. It's possible that you'll see TikTok have significant regulations against it, though I doubt it'll be removed. But that has nothing to do with social media problems for free speech that just has to do with the fact that it's Chinese-owned. And a lot of people are concerned about the Chinese government having access to that data.
No, the big question for me is the future of decentralization. Right now we have a governance model where you have a small number of corporations and the individuals that own them that have access to all of this data, might personalized artificial intelligence in the near term, undermine that model when you have individual bots that work for you that can scour the entire internet and give you a news experience, a media experience, a social media experience that you curate as opposed to the sovereigns in the tech space curate that. That would be a radical transformation of the space that would deeply threaten those that own these social media and other tech platform monopolies.
The other broader, longer-term question would be whether the blockchain undermines data surveillance by taking privacy and giving it back to individuals. I think the former might be three years away. The latter is probably more like 10 or 20, but at least for the foreseeable future, this is a very serious problem.
So that's a little bit for me, my take on everything, Twitter, social media, and democracy. And I'll talk to y'all real soon.
Whistleblowers & how to activate a new era of digital accountability
Frances Haugen famously blew the whistle against her then-employer, Facebook. She says we must recognize that the gap between fast-changing tech and slow-moving governments will continue to widen, and the best way to narrow it, is to encourage people to speak out against questionable practices. These whistleblowers need better laws to protect them, she tells Ian Bremmer in a GZERO World interview.
Despite all of this, Haugen still has hope that the corporate culture inside tech companies can change for the better. The role of social media companies in politics is still growing, and now the failures of social media companies can have life-or-death consequences.
Haugen suggests that governments need to rethink how they regulate social media companies, and hold them more accountable for the consequences of their actions.
The EU just approved the Digital Services Act, which for the first time will mandate social media companies be more transparent about what they do with personal data.
If if it works in Europe, the DSA could inspire similar laws in other parts of the world too. Haugen also discusses the preponderance of "bot" accounts on social media, and says companies often choose to ignore the large numbers of fake followers.
When social media fails, lives are at stake
Former US President Donald Trump had many Twitter hits. But he's been kicked off since the 2021 Capitol insurrection over fears Trump's tweets would stoke further violence.
Social media companies play an outsize role in American politics. That's why the Jan. 6 committee has subpoenaed most of them to probe their role in the 2020 election Ian Bremmer explains on GZERO World.
But the influence of Facebook, Twitter, and others on our lives extends well beyond that. And it's not just Nicki Minaj's cousin's friend having a bad vaxx trip — the failures of social media companies can have life-or-death consequences.
Platforms like Facebook have helped stoke violence against Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar. And the endless scroll of perfect bodies on Instagram has had a harmful impact on teenage girls, with some reporting suicidal thoughts.
Watch the GZERO World episode: Why social media is broken & how to fix it
Why social media is broken & how to fix it
Social media companies play an outsize role in global politics — from the US to Myanmar. And when they fail, their actions can cost lives.
That's why Frances Haugen blew the whistle against her then-employer, Facebook, when she felt the company hadn't done enough to stop an outrage-driven algorithm from spreading misinformation, hate, and even offline violence.
On GZERO World, Haugen tells Ian Bremmer why governments need to rethink how they regulate social media. A good example is the EU, whose new law mandating data transparency could have global ripple effects.
Haugen also explains why those annoying messages about sharing your cookies are actually a good thing, and why she still believes social media companies can change for the better.
Finally, don't miss her take on Elon Musk having second thoughts about Twitter.
- Big Tech: Global sovereignty, unintended consequences - GZERO ... ›
- GOP battle with Big Tech reaches the Supreme Court - GZERO Media ›
- The Graphic Truth: Twitter doesn't rule the social world - GZERO Media ›
- Be more worried about artificial intelligence - GZERO Media ›
- What is Section 230, the 90's law governing the internet? - GZERO ... ›
- How social media harms democracy - GZERO Media ›
- Norway's school phone ban aims to reclaim "stolen focus", says PM Jonas Støre - GZERO Media ›
Elon Musk to buy Twitter: will misinformation thrive?
Jon Lieber, head of Eurasia Group's coverage of political and policy developments in Washington, discusses the political impact of Elon Musk's plan to buyTwitter.
Why will Elon Musk be in a political hotspot if he buys Twitter?
The announcement that Twitter has agreed to be acquired by billionaire Elon Musk has set both the social media site and Washington political analysis ablaze. Liberals and conservatives both agree that Twitter is an essential town square, an important tool for political communication and outreach.
But liberals are concerned about policing hate speech and abuse, as well as misinformation on the platform, things they have criticized Twitter for in the past, while conservatives have criticized what they see as Twitter's overly aggressive content moderation policies that's resulted in the removal of several prominent conservative figures, including former President Trump from the platform, but has also resulted in the censorship of discussion around issues like the efficacy of mask mandates and stopping the spread of coronavirus, the potential origins of the pandemic in a Wuhan laboratory, and discussion about the contents of the laptop stolen from current President Biden's son. Musk has promised to be a free speech absolutist suggesting he will reinstate many of the banned accounts and not censor freewheeling speech about controversial topics online.
But one thing to watch is that Musk's approach is likely to create massive regulatory challenges for both Musk and the website, particularly in Europe, which has much stricter speech codes than the United States, requiring content moderation and banning things like hate speech. The EU just recently passed a law that would censor and fine companies that do not comply, and several high-ranking EU officials have already sent warnings to Musk that he must moderate illegal and harmful content online. Musk has developed a reputation as being an aggressive disruptor of the status quo in Washington, breaking into industries, such as space launch and broadband deployment, and he has also a long history of flouting US regulators, leading to sanctions from securities regulators, as well as admonishment from transportation safety and labor regulators in Washington, and this is unlikely to stop.
For his part, President Trump has said he doesn't want to get back on Twitter, but it seems likely that if Twitter lifts its ban on his account, the platform and the fundraising opportunities will be too great for him to ignore. Much like how Trump's tweets are too difficult for political journalists to ignore, setting up a stage for a return to the Trump-dominated political discourse that existed in the United States from 2015 until he was banned from Twitter in early 2021.
- Twitter smells of Musk - GZERO Media ›
- What We're Watching: Musk irks China, Abbas meets Gantz in Israel ... ›
- A “techlash” is coming this year - GZERO Media ›
- US pushes back on EU's proposed laws impacting US tech ... ›
- US politics are prone to misinformation, says former Danish PM - GZERO Media ›
- Was Elon Musk right about Twitter's bots? - GZERO Media ›
- How social media harms democracy - GZERO Media ›
- Elon Musk wants a way out of Twitter - GZERO Media ›
How tech was used to harm democracy on January 6
Marietje Schaake, International Policy Director at Stanford's Cyber Policy Center, Eurasia Group senior advisor and former MEP, discusses trends in big tech, privacy protection and cyberspace:
What is the tech legacy of the first anniversary of the January 6th storming of the Capitol?
Now, one is that it is so clear that there is no such thing as an online world that's separated from our offline lives. We see democracy being harmed in new ways and speech fueling actions in the streets. And this is not just a speech issue, but data harvesting and micro-targeting are giving those hate speech calls wings online.
Secondly, is that there is still so much we don't know. We learn new things every week, such as this week when Brookings researchers showed how podcasts were used to fan the flames of fraud claims and violence, and the Washington Post and ProPublica this week published their analysis of 650,000 Facebook posts, that was about 10,000 a week, leading up to the storming of the Capitol and their valuable work comes a year after the failed coup attempt, reminding us of the opacity of the workings of tech companies. Facebook itself has actually refused to turn over the documents that the congressional investigative committee has asked for.
Now, while the dots are still being connected on January 6th and the events that unfolded, we already see plenty of new threats, plots, and lies to hurt democratic rights being devised. Now I hope today and this week, everyone pauses and reflects, remembering that there are no winners when democracy itself is lost.