Why Governments, Not Markets, Need to Address Platform Harms

Executive Summary

As the 2020 Facebook advertiser boycott escalated, with hundreds of major companies pulling ads over the platform's failure to act on racist and hateful content, this commentary questions how much real change the action can force. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg made clear the company would not change its policies over a threat to any percentage of its revenue, and the boycott was expected to affect less than 5 percent of Facebook's revenue, in part because 76 percent of ad spending on the platform comes from small and medium-sized businesses unlikely to withdraw. A July 7 meeting between Zuckerberg and civil rights groups produced no new commitments.

Drawing on Centre for Media, Technology and Democracy Director Taylor Owen's analysis on CBC's Front Burner podcast, the piece argues that Facebook and Google's effective duopoly on the digital ad market limits what boycotts can achieve, and that activists should instead push governments to write and enforce regulation compelling platforms to serve the broader public interest. Germany's 2018 law, which threatens platforms with fines of up to $60 million for failing to remove hate speech and illegal material, is cited as one model. Because platform harms and free-speech conditions vary by country — with abuses in places like the Philippines and Brazil drawing far less attention than domestic controversies — regulation will need to differ across jurisdictions. The commentary concludes that Canada should not wait for U.S. action and should develop its own rules governing platforms operating within its borders.