All things considered, programs presented on Radio-Canada, Noovo or TVA achieve audience successes that would make broadcasters in several countries jealous. But for how much longer? From now on, when a consumer acquires a television, the welcome screen imposed on them includes a set of propositions, often in English only, which have little to do with the preferences of most Canadians. . In a report broadcast in March at Investigationwe learn that connected televisions commonly sold in retail stores are often configured to exclude content produced here.
Due to the distressing delay in updating our laws, manufacturers have the ability to configure the devices they offer on the Canadian market as they wish. They do not have to take into account the fact that there are creators here who produce original music and television shows. The person who buys a television today is in a position to ignore the existence of TVA, Noovo, Radio-Canada or Télé-Québec! Public opinion is aroused by questions that are infinitely more trivial!
For example, in the report ofInvestigation, the device acquired by the Montreal citizen did not include the applications of Radio-Canada, TVA, Noovo or Télé-Québec. This is without counting the remote controls which have specific buttons associated only with foreign services, such as Netflix or Amazon Prime, while they obscure most Canadian programming services.
The default configurations are imposed on the user. Sometimes they can be modified, often at the cost of efforts that are not always within everyone’s reach. Above all, there is no guarantee that consumers will be able to install applications that provide access to Canadian television. HAS InvestigationMarie Collin, CEO of Télé-Québec, deplores that, on certain equipment, it is not possible to install the application of this broadcaster.
Data that is worth gold
Connected TVs raise other questions. When installing one, the consumer is asked to “consent” to the collection of data that may be generated by the device. Such data on listening habits and other information may thus be transmitted to the manufacturer and its business partners. This is an illustration of the certainly necessary, but insufficient nature of individual “consent” to govern the collection and processing of personal data. We need regulations requiring companies that collect such masses of data to account for what they do with it.
In fact, this data feeds the algorithms which generate the recommendations sent to users. They are not only of interest to individuals faced with the false choice of “consenting” or refusing to connect their television. This massively collected data is an essential resource for understanding habits, generating value and selling ads. They are monopolized without serious compensation by the multinationals which dominate the market. And while we allow this monopolization for the benefit of multinationals, we exhaust ourselves here deploring that the funding base of our media is crumbling.
The default settings of websites or connected objects impose their conditions without it being practically possible to know their operating modes. To persist in considering these systems as simply “commercial practices” and individual consent is discouragingly naive. A naivety which explains the delay of public authorities in imposing real obligations on manufacturers and all companies which configure objects and use the data they generate. This immobility amounts to condoning the risks of manipulation which can inevitably result from these processes.
For example, regarding books sold on Amazon, The world reported the findings of a report published in December 2023, on its automated recommendation and search system. Researchers found that not only are misleading books about health, immigration, climate change and gender issues being promoted, but the system also traps users in such narratives.
These revelations should encourage the Quebec government to impose discoverability obligations on online bookstores which certainly fall under its jurisdiction. If algorithms can, as the study shows, favor conspiratorial works and other books based on disinformation, it should be possible to know this and to impose that these algorithms operate according to known and publicly criticizable criteria.
At the federal level, legislation requires online distribution companies to ensure the discoverability of Canadian works. The CRTC has undertaken hearings to determine how online platforms should ensure the promotion of Canadian and French-speaking productions as well as those emanating from First Nations creators. The Yale report on upgrading communications laws noted that the Minister of Industry should have the power to establish and enforce standards relating to operating systems and software for communications devices.
In the United Kingdom, legislation is being passed to, among other things, require that content broadcast by the public service BBC and other national broadcasters always be easy to find for British audiences on connected devices and online platforms.
In connected worlds, censorship mainly comes from devices installed by default by companies. Laws must protect our freedom to access content produced here… while it’s still here!