Marc Miller: We Have No Choice. We Have to Censor the Internet

After age verification failed for a third time elsewhere, one Minister has resorted to using the excuse of having no choice.

Supporters of age verification have long run out of excuses for supporting age verification. The excuse that age verification is reliable? Nuked. The excuse that age verification is secure? Destroyed. The excuse that children are experiencing harm thanks to social media on a massive scale? Wiped out. The excuse that it is working oh so well in Australia? Blown to bits. The excuse that Europe is also implementing this perfect set of laws? Flattened. The excuse that it is working out well in the UK? Blown to smithereens.

Indeed, age verification supporters have thrown down a gauntlet of talking points and excuses for their beloved age verification legislation and, one by one, they were completely destroyed. So, what is the excuse this time now that it is crystal clear that age verification laws are a failure? Apparently, it’s the excuse of “well, we have no choice but to implement because REASONS!!!” That’s not an exaggeration, Canadian government officials are really saying that. From The Globe and Mail:

Canadian Identity Minister Marc Miller told MPs Tuesday that Ottawa needs to act on teens’ access to social media platforms, adding that the government does not have a choice because of their impact on young people.

Speaking to the Commons heritage committee, Mr. Miller gave his strongest indication yet that the government is seriously considering bringing in a ban on social media for teens under the age of 16 as part of a forthcoming online harms bill.

Asked by Bloc Québécois MP Martin Champoux about whether the government is contemplating such a move, Mr. Miller replied: “I think we have to act as the federal government. We don’t have a choice,” because of what is going on with young people.

“I think as a father, I feel some responsibility, but also as a minister, to assure myself we are doing the right thing for our young people,” he added.

He said the impact of social media use by children, especially younger ones, is known from scientific studies. “We’re talking about brains that haven’t fully developed,” he said.

Yes, the scientific studies have long concluded that social media is harmful. Just look at this study that says- D’oh! OK, well this other study clearly shows- D’oh! OK, bad example, but this other scientific study clearly shows- D’oh! Well, not everyone says those things, let’s look at this study that says- D’oh! OK, this is just really bad luck. Let’s look at this other study that- D’oh! There’s gotta be one study that actually shows this, right? What about this study that- D’oh! OK, let’s try one more time with this study that- D’oh! Ah, forget it. I’m sure that Miller cited his own research here… oh wait, he didn’t. It was just completely made up. Never mind.

Anyway, those children’s brains are clearly developing, so what could possibly be more healthy for them than to abruptly sever connections between friends and family one day? If you’re going to drive home the point that they will die alone, hopeless, and broken, you better start early, right?

Hilariously enough, Miller admitted that the Australian experience was a failure as teens circumvent the age restrictions on a massive scale. So, what’s his solution? Apparently, to vaguely wave their hands and push online harms legislation as if that somehow magically solves the original problem. No that doesn’t make any sense whatsoever, but he threw that out there anyway:

Mr. Miller referred to an under-16 social media ban introduced in Australia last year, where a survey showed that more than half of teens covered by the ban still use restricted social media apps.

The poll of 1,050 children aged 12-15, found that 61 per cent of that cohort who had accounts on platforms that became restricted when the ban went into force still have access to one or more of those accounts. The survey was conducted by online safety advocacy group the Molly Rose Foundation and Australia’s largest youth research group, YouthInsight.

Many major social media platforms in Canada already have their own bans on youths under 13, but young users have found ways to set up accounts.

“Any age restriction should be done, if it’s done, it should be done in such a way so we don’t limit ourselves only to this,” he said, adding that young people know how to get around restrictions fairly easily.

He suggested it could form part of a future online harms bill that addresses different types of hate while fully respecting freedom of expression.

He said he would like to see this happen as “soon as possible,” but said there’s still work to be done before any bill is tabled.

So, let me get this straight, Canada is going to implement one censorship bill that has a history of having a 100% failure rate. This is being done under the excuse “something must be done!!!” even though there is precisely zero hope that this legislation has any chance of success. So, in order to cover up the inevitable failure of this legislation that lawmakers themselves know is coming, they are going to implement a second internet censorship bill that is otherwise known as an online harms bill that is equally problematic from a technical standpoint as well as being obviously unconstitutional. The reason behind this second step? Well, the government hasn’t really thought this through yet, so they’ll keep you posted on that. I have three words for that: not good enough.

The article vaguely refers to unnamed “experts” saying how badly needed all of this is and that they are just working out the details of how this will all work out. The reality is that experts are skeptical that this is even the right approach. Take, for instance, university law professor, Michael Geist, who had this to say:

The frenzy to ban kids from social media continues to grow with Culture Minister Marc Miller telling a House of Commons committee that the government has no choice but to act. Miller’s comments are consistent with the federal Liberal policy convention vote backing a minimum age of 16 and Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew announcing that his government will be the first in Canada to ban kids from both social media and AI chatbots. The problem, as I documented in detail last week, is that good intentions do not make for good policy. In this case, a social media ban is bad policy because it does not address the underlying problems with the platforms, evidence to date suggests it doesn’t work, and it creates its own harms. But the bad policy does not end there, as the possibility of extending that same framework to AI chatbots is now squarely on the table. This post examines the implications of a ban on kids’ use of AI chatbots, arguing that such an approach is even worse than a social media ban. To be clear, regulation of AI chatbots is needed, but a ban leaves the genuine concerns associated with AI chatbots largely untouched.

In other words, banning children from social media will not only fail to even come close to addressing these supposed “concerns”, but also introduce a whole pile of new problems on top of it all. This is a reasonably accurate assessment, but there are definitely questions about whether or not the “harms” are actually grossly exaggerated or simply completely fabricated.

As reported in the Globe and Mail, the Ministers comments were complete word salad from beginning to end. He highlights no real justification for this madness, makes vague references to additional legislation for when the age verification legislation inevitably fails, then wraps that BS with the “have no choice” excuse. I’ll say it again: not good enough. Some people might be wondering why I refer to supporters of these laws as a “cult”. This is why. All evidence is disregarded, actual evidence is vague, there is no logic behind the justifications, the excuses lead to vague hand-wringing and “because I said so”, and it all hinges on a moral panic that has no basis in reality. This is not evidence based policy making. It is policy-making based on a vague and very wrong beliefs of what happens on the internet. This seriously needs to stop.

Drew Wilson on Mastodon, Bluesky and Facebook.