Jun 22, 2026 · 29 min · 10 segments
Bill C-34, the Safe Social Media Act, has quickly become a lightning rod for debate since its introduction earlier this month. The issue that invariably tops the list is the kids’ social media ban…
Michael GeistHostNo entities detected.
Hi, Michael.
Welcome to The Decibel.
So we will get into some of the details of this proposed legislation, but before we do, what was your overall impression of the Safe Social Media Act?
Well, on the one hand, I was happy to see some of the, I think, good policies that, that we found in the earlier bill resurface yet again, notably this notion of a duty to act responsibly as, as a foundation for how we approach the idea of regulating social media companies and potentially AI chatbots as well.
It offers the potential, I think, for real regulation and for some better safety measures long term for Canadians.
But of course, the focal point for many was the social media ban, which I think is a mistake and bad policy.
And once you scratch below the surface a little bit, candidly, you find that so many of the decisions associated with what the law will actually mean and how it will actually work have been punted either to a future cabinet or to this Digital Safety Commission that, of course, as, as of now, doesn't even exist.
Something you mentioned there that you do like is this idea of flexibility.
Can you, uh, explain that a little bit more?
Yeah, I like it in part because I think we need to recognize that services, if we're talking about AI chatbots or talking about social media companies, or frankly, it could be other services, the, there is the prospect of including other operators that are on the web or applications as well.
Uh, one size fits all when dealing with these different kinds of services I don't think works, you know?
Mm-hmm.
The reality is a, a chatbot and social media company aren't the same for the purposes of some of the harms that might arise or some of the design issues that we might wanna focus on.
And so having that kind of overall framing around a duty to act responsibly, to be fleshed out in terms of what that might mean for design, what it might mean from a transparency perspective, uh, I think is the, is the right way to go.
It, it I think better ensures that we can have fit for purpose rules for the various kinds of services.
Hi, Michael.
Welcome to The Decibel.
So we will get into some of the details of this proposed legislation, but before we do, what was your overall impression of the Safe Social Media Act?
Well, on the one hand, I was happy to see some of the, I think, good policies that, that we found in the earlier bill resurface yet again, notably this notion of a duty to act responsibly as, as a foundation for how we approach the idea of regulating social media companies and potentially AI chatbots as well.
It offers the potential, I think, for real regulation and for some better safety measures long term for Canadians.
But of course, the focal point for many was the social media ban, which I think is a mistake and bad policy.
And once you scratch below the surface a little bit, candidly, you find that so many of the decisions associated with what the law will actually mean and how it will actually work have been punted either to a future cabinet or to this Digital Safety Commission that, of course, as, as of now, doesn't even exist.
Something you mentioned there that you do like is this idea of flexibility.
Can you, uh, explain that a little bit more?
Yeah, I like it in part because I think we need to recognize that services, if we're talking about AI chatbots or talking about social media companies, or frankly, it could be other services, the, there is the prospect of including other operators that are on the web or applications as well.
Uh, one size fits all when dealing with these different kinds of services I don't think works, you know?
Mm-hmm.
The reality is a, a chatbot and social media company aren't the same for the purposes of some of the harms that might arise or some of the design issues that we might wanna focus on.
And so having that kind of overall framing around a duty to act responsibly, to be fleshed out in terms of what that might mean for design, what it might mean from a transparency perspective, uh, I think is the, is the right way to go.
It, it I think better ensures that we can have fit for purpose rules for the various kinds of services.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.