Why Blaming Meta for Exacerbating Harm During B.C. Wildfires is a Disingenuous Political Tactic
August 25, 2023
“It is so inconceivable that a company like Facebook is choosing to put corporate profits ahead of ensuring that local news organizations can get up-to-date information to Canadians, and reach them where Canadians spend a lot of their time. Online. On social media. On Facebook.” – Prime Minister Trudeau
Canada is experiencing its worst wildfire season on record, with the total number toppling the country’s 10-year average. Since the summer began, much of Canada has either directly or indirectly dealt with wildfires. Consequently, Canadians have been left with lost and damaged structures, poor air quality, and life-altering decisions as at least 15.3 million hectares have been scorched.
Coinciding with the beginning of wildfire season was the passing of Bill C-18, the Online News Act, which requires Meta and Google to pay local news agencies a portion of corporate profits for news links shared on their platforms. Inevitably, this sparked a standoff between the Government of Canada and these corporations as they argue the true objectives of libertarian and democratic societies. Canadian officials have argued that Meta and Google earn 80 percent of advertising revenue in Canada, and forced nearly 500 media outlets to close. On the other hand, Meta and industry experts cautioned the Canadian government of the bill’s impact, suggesting it would lead to decreases in traffic for local media outlets, termination of existing deals, and lost news revenues. With the passing of the bill, Meta has, in recent weeks, begun the process of permanently removing access to news sources in Canada on Facebook and Instagram. With this blockade coinciding with active wildfires in British Columbia, the Canadian government has made it a point to admonish Meta’s perceived inhumanity in prioritizing profits over safety.
The scope of my focus here is confined to two questions. First, does Meta have a fundamental responsibility to allow Canadians to share and access news links on the platform in times of crisis? And second, does the absence of this ability exacerbate harm? But before I unpack these ideas I want to start off with the disclaimer. In general, assigning blame isn’t helpful in preparing for, or responding to, wildfires. I recognize that lives, livelihoods, and communities have been lost, and being so, at the center of these conversations should be a human-centered approach that uses collaborative efforts of public and private sector resources to organize an effective response. To a degree, this is happening. However, in the context of Meta, the challenge is the ideal isn’t pragmatic, which lends us to a discussion on responsibility to identify leverage points.
“I call on Facebook again. Mr. Zuckerberg, open up access to Canadian media so that British Columbians can share critical local information so that they can be safe.” – Premier Eby
With modern conversations of corporate social responsibility (CSR) there’s a general expectation for companies to be socially accountable to the public. At large, the practice enables corporations to understand their impact on all aspects of society. In this context, the expectation that Meta should allow Canadians to share and access news links on the platform arguably function as moral and ethical dilemmas under the umbrella of CSR.
From the perspective of the federal government and the Premier of British Columbia, the ethics of the situation provides an implied answer—yes. Meta should certainly allow Canadians to fully access and share the news in times of crisis. They argue that Canadians—and people in general—spend vast amounts of time of social media, particularly Facebook and Instagram, and that information is primarily consumed through these apps. This provides an interconnectedness and ease of accessibility given its reach. So, by way of blocking the sharing and access to news links, implied is the notion that Meta is exacerbating harm by disrupting the flow of information.
From an analytical perspective, it’s difficult to assess the reliance on Facebook and Instagram without firsthand experience. Nonetheless, there are some gaps in these arguments.
When it comes to preparation and reaction to crises all governments in moderately developed nations use cellphone services to broadcast emergency alerts. In many circumstances, should there be a gap in information of potential threats online, this acts as the first lever of control to ensure preparation and manage expectations. What the news does is it provides updates during these natural disasters, often using social media as a medium to reach the masses. Meta’s response only blocks the ability to share and access news links and profiles on Facebook and Instagram. Canadians still have the general ability to use these apps and access all other accounts. Naturally this includes blogs, popular journalists, and informational accounts that are often used to spread information. People can still live stream and search hashtags that may connect people in affected areas to safety. What the governments messaging failed to indicate was that in many cases it’s often these other accounts (blogs, activists, journalists, etc.) that social media users rely on for information around the world because of their direct connections to the people. And in local contexts Instagram and Facebook are used by local outlets to drive traffic to their websites so people can read the full article or gather full updates. This means that Canadians would have to go directly to the websites for updates during crises regardless—something that can still be, and is, done. Here, it would seem that the disruption is indeed inconvenient, but not as significant as it might seem to the flow of information. Particularly because other apps like X (formerly Twitter), YouTube, and TikTok can be used. And they would be.
The main point of departure in understanding Meta’s role in what the Canadian government has suggested is the prioritization of “corporate profits over democracy and safety” is that for better or for worse, it’s the Canadian government that created and implemented legislation that had an anticipated response from Meta. So where does this leave us? Ethics aside, it would seem that Meta doesn’t have a fundamental responsibility to open access to news on social media given that there are substitute ways to get this information. Being so, the semantics from the Government of Canada and the Premier of British Columbia reek of virtue signaling. More specifically, the Government of Canada’s actions suggest that the crises and disasters some Canadians are dealing with are being viewed as opportunities to apply pressure and garner public support for a wound that was self-inflicted—although unintended.
In practical terms, I don’t see Meta willing to compromise on their position because of their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders in maximizing profits. But the greater reason is that there are always crises that require local communication. So, to what extent should we pick and choose what crises Meta should allow full access to on its platforms? And when do we do determine it’s no longer needed? In the unlikely scenario that Meta obliges, it could set a precedent that signals they could be pressured by other governments. What this means is that our focus should only be on supporting those who need it in the best way possible, which again, is already happening. And as much as I see the value in it as a political tactic, I find it problematic to use the plight of Canadians as pressure points in a political and financial war with Meta to force them to the negotiation table.
Interested in donating to support wildfire recoveries? Support these organizations: