Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2024

The Current Transcript for February 27, 2024

Host: Matt Galloway

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

SOUNDCLIP

KARA SWISHER: All of these people have unaccountable power and there's no laws governing them. That's what's astonishing. In the history of the planet, there's never been a more powerful group of people that have had very little laws against them.

MATT GALLOWAY: From the time when the internet was just text, no pictures, and certainly no streaming video or social media, Kara Swisher has been writing about our life online and the people who control it. No surprise, the opinionated tech journalist holds a little back in her new memoir, Burn Book. In a moment, Kara Swisher on Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, what it will take to hold those titans to account for what their products do and why she still believes in tech. Also this morning, after much criticism, the federal government has trained its sights once again on Big Tech. The Online Harms Bill aims to combat hatred and incitements to violence online and protect young people. In 30 minutes, what that actually means and whether the bill goes far enough while still protecting the rights of users. And later:

SOUNDCLIP

SPEAKER: We found ourselves in this weird position where we're forcing some women to have the children they don't have, and we're preventing other women from having the children they want.

MG: Parents in Alabama are reeling after the Supreme Court in that state declared that frozen embryos produced for in-vitro fertilization are people with legal rights. In an hour, the fallout for the ruling for would-be parents there and for others closely watching. But we begin with a tech takedown. Good morning, I'm Matt Galloway and this is The Current.

[Music: Theme]

Kara Swisher says it’s time to regulate big tech

Guests: Kara Swisher

MG: She has been called Silicon Valley's most feared and well-liked journalist. Kara Swisher made her name covering the tech industry during the 1990s boom and the rise of the commercial internet. And now she has written a memoir of her three-decade career in journalism. The book is called Burn Book: A Tech Love Story. Kara Swisher is in our Washington, D.C. studio. Kara, good morning.

KARA SWISHER: Good morning.

MG: Would you rather be feared or liked?

KARA SWISHER: I don't get that. That was a New York magazine profile of me. And, you know, they go for catchy headlines. I don't even know what it means. Honestly, I don't think I'm that particularly well-liked or that particularly scary. But, I guess, I guess, liked. Well, I don't know. It depends on by whom...

MG: [Laughing]

KARA SWISHER: ...by whom, by whom. That's how I would define it.

MG: You start this book with an epigraph from The Great Gatsby. And this observation that Nick makes that Jay, Gatsby and Daisy are, above all, above everything else.

KARA SWISHER: Not Jay. Daisy and Tom.

MG: Daisy and Tom. That's right. That they're careless above everything else.

KARA SWISHER: Yes, indeed. Yeah, yeah. Try to get your rich people straight. I'm very good at that.

MG: Who did you have in mind when you decided you wanted to [KARA: oh...] open the book with that line?

KARA SWISHER: You know, all of them, in pieces. You know, this idea, this carelessness. Probably Mark Zuckerberg. I used it in a speech once, and I was referencing Sheryl Sandberg and Mark Zuckerberg, but I was referring to the whole thing is this sort of lack of accountability and lack of interest in consequence and lack of payment of their costs. They just, they don't like to take responsibility in a way that adults do, that everybody else has to when things happen. One thing that comes to mind, you know, Mark--and I, let me just be clear, I think he's a, I don't, he's not an Elon Musk character, right? He hasn't, he certainly has a stable life and a lovely family and everything else. But when he was in congress this time, and he's been there a number of times, and he turned to the families who had those pictures up, which was very gripping.

MG: These are the families whose children have died.

KARA SWISHER: And they attribute it to social media, the uses of either bullying or all kinds of things. And he turned to them, and I could see in his eyes I know him a little bit, and I could see him seeing it right, which I appreciated. But instead of saying, 'I'm so sorry for what I've done to cause your pain,' which would be an adult thing to do, he said, 'I'm so sorry for what's been done to you.' It was a very passive, like, and I found that really interesting, that he couldn't take responsibility still when he could see it, he could see the pain. And I understand liability. I understand this, but these people can't be sued, really. There's no legislation, guardrails around them. It's very hard to get them to pay for anything. And so, I didn't, I don't know the risk to admitting you might have made some design flaws that led to problems.

MG: I want to come back to consequences in a minute for those individuals. Let me talk about you. How did this start out for you? Why did you want to cover what was happening in Silicon Valley?

KARA SWISHER: Well, I actually started out covering in Washington, D.C., where I am living now. I was covering retail for The Washington Post, and I was writing about this very wealthy family that was warring. It was sort of like King Lear story. And I wanted something fresh. And I happened to be the young person in the news in the business section, which is, you know, in my 30s. And this online services thing had started, and there was a company called America Online. The editor at the time, who was David Ignatius, said, you're the young person. Why don't you go out there and see what's cooking? Like, you know, essentially. And I just got interested in it. And once I went out there, I met Steve Case, who was the CEO.

MG: Of AOL?

KARA SWISHER: Of AOL. It was called America Online. They didn't call it AOL until they did the big branding thing later. But until I met him, it didn't, the penny didn't drop that this was a communications system for the whole world.

MG: Do you remember? I mean, I'm of the age where I had an email address that was as long as my arm initially. Do you remember your first experience on what was called the World Wide Web?

KARA SWISHER: I do. You know, I had tried out the browsers and stuff like that and all the FTP. I don't even remember what it was called. But I was at Duke University, and I was on a fellowship when I was at the Washington Post, and I had downloaded a book and my mind was blown. It was a Calvin and Hobbes cartoon book. It was then it was on my computer, and I was like, what? This--you could digitize everything. What? Like I kept saying, what? Like, look at this. And the guy who I, this guy was like, so what? And I was like, so what? You don't need a book if you can download a book. You don't need a newspaper if you can download a newspaper. Can you think of the implications? And he just couldn't and I, that just was the penny. I was like everything. And I say this in the book, everything that can be digitized will be digitized. It just popped into my head, and I don't know, maybe I had watched too much Star Trek or something, but it was like, it was a moment. I was like, oh. Oh, oh oh.

MG: How early on did you start to think of the potential harms of that technology?

KARA SWISHER: Right. Not too long. I was sort of interested in gadgets, so I was kind of entranced by it initially. But I think it was, it took a while for me to understand the power that these people were going to have, the unlimited power to control things. And for the first part, it was quite delightful. It was really interesting. I did recognize the decimation of the media business right away. I just was like, oh, look, all the economic underpinnings of this business are under siege. The subscription, because you could get news free, the classifieds because Craigslist was free, you could start to see how they could control everything, every aspect of the distribution system.

MG: You had the great fortune. I mean, you say 'they,' of knowing a lot of the people who were instrumental in creating [KARA: Yes.] the things that we take for granted. Now, let me just ask you about some of the big players. Kind of like a lightning round of your impressions. You mentioned Mark Zuckerberg already. What about Steve Jobs? You say the Steve Jobs was the most consequential figure in the modern tech?

KARA SWISHER: I think that. I think because of the iPhone. I really do. And the, and, the consumerization, the beautiful use cases of it. Computers were very hard to use, right? And he made it easy. He understood science and design and understood products. Right? And he transitioned that computer to phone era to internet really well. And that iPhone, when it came out, again, it was another moment where I was like, Oh, the apps. Because I had had the BlackBerry. You know, the one that just had text. And when you saw the apps, it was so elegant. It was like, click, I get it. You know what I mean? It was so easy.

MG: What about Elon Musk?

KARA SWISHER: Well, he's a complicated figure. Initially he was sort of one of those guys who had a company. And he had essentially a Yellow Pages company online, Yellow Pages company. And then he made some money and like a lot of people, but instead of going in the direction other people went, which was to become sort of a weekend VC or start a, you know, a dry-cleaning delivery service, which to me was really stupid. He started moving into cars and like Hyperloop and space. And that was different and really ambitious. And he didn't invent Tesla. Other people did. And SpaceX was something, you know, he was sort of like Jobs-y in that way. He could see where it was going.

MG: You were a fan of his early on?

KARA SWISHER: Yes, I was. I wouldn't say fan. I was not like his man fans, but.

MG: But do you feel like you got him wrong in some ways. That you, [KARA: No.] based on who he is now?

KARA SWISHER: No, I don't. I think people change. I don't, you know, I get that people to see that. And I really was inspired by what he was doing. He was very Jobs-y. And he really had some vision of where things were going. Cars. There was no way we would be where we are in the EVs and electric cars without Elon Musk. There's just, hands down. He gets all credit. Same thing with space innovation. And so, there was a lot to really admire. A lot. I always joke I like space Karen and I like car Karen, but I do not like social media Karen.

MG: What happened to him?

KARA SWISHER: You know, he always had those elements. The boob jokes, the penis jokes, whatever. You know, the memes. And it was always there. And you were always like, well, you're a little old for those jokes, right? You know? But it wasn't, like, it wasn't unusual because a lot of tech people are like that. They love dumb jokes or dumb memes. Something happened in the wealth creation. You know, everyone gets affected differently by wealth. Some people can handle it. Other people cannot. Something happened during COVID. If you noticed, there was a lot of, it happened in Canada, it happened everywhere. There was some sort of radicalization. You know, he got mad that he couldn't run his factories, couldn't do what he wanted. We had an interview where I challenged him on his COVID rants and he said, he, 'I read everything.' I was like, well, you're not a medical doctor and you have no idea what's happening. He threatened to leave the interview. He had never done that. That was odd. And then, you know, you heard rumours of his use of ketamine. They all were using it. Like, let me tell you, this is not an uncommon thing in tech. He started to really remind me of Howard Hughes. Like, if you had to make a comparison, like everybody was making dough off of this guy and so he could do whatever he wanted in order to, and it ran smack dab into a God complex that he always had, right? And, you know, he started to say things like, if Tesla doesn't work, humanity is doomed. And you're like, okay. But you know, it was, you know, what do you say to that? Like, 'that's a little dramatic, honey.' You know, that kind of thing. And there was nobody who didn't hear about his partying, right? The board let it happen because they all made not just a little money on the board, hundreds of millions of dollars. They also kind of liked it, this idea of, you know, fighting the man. That started to really infect the rich people of Silicon Valley quite a bit. It's amazing, incredibly rich and powerful people tell you they're fighting the man and you kind of look around and you're like, I believe you.

MG: Why do you think they talk to you? I mean, you've had access, [KARA: Mhmm.] I mean, you talk in the book about that interview with Mark Zuckerberg where it looked like he was going to, you know, [KARA: Sweat, yes.] sweat through his hoodie. You've had [KARA: He did sweat through his hoodie.] these interviews with Steve Jobs and Bill Gates together on the same stage, Elon Musk, etc. Why do you think they talk to you?

KARA SWISHER: Well, you know, in the case of Gates and Jobs, they're adults. Like Tim Cook, like they're adults. They know that I'm going to have some tough questions and they don't mind it because they're secure people. Right? To different extents. And they liked, Jobs particularly like the back and forth, because no one ever challenged him, really, easily, and got away with it kind of thing. And he liked a good debate, and he was quite prescient and interesting, and you could really draw out some really interesting things. So, there's good people I put in the adult category that are like, I'll talk to her. And also, I happen to talk to all of them and therefore, like Mark doesn't talk to Elon, but I talk to both of them. And so, they're interested in each other, right? So, I had a much more landscape view of the situation.

MG: If you know, you know, what the CEO should be doing, you know, you're very vocal in talking, but sometimes advised some of the CEOs.

KARA SWISHER: I wouldn't say advised. I actually say it publicly. I say, I'm going to say this publicly. So I'm going to tell you right off the bat, not just write it.

MG: Why didn't you cash in rather than stand on the sidelines?

KARA SWISHER: I guess I don't like money enough. I was offered jobs at every single one of those companies, every one of them at early stages. I just didn't want to talk to them. I know it sounds; I didn't want to take orders from them. I don't know, I just, I didn't want to work for them. I don't know, I don't like money enough. I knew the money was there. I just I wasn't as interested in the money as I was in what I was doing. And so I guess, you know. And I was doing fine. I don't need billions of dollars.

MG: That's quite a thing to say.

KARA SWISHER: Well, I don't know, what would I do? It's such a--when you start to watch a lot of the corrosive effects of it on their children and also their lives. They, one of the things, I did the podcast for Succession, which I loved, which I love that show. And one of the things that you notice is the interiors get tighter and tighter and more comfortable and more cashmere. And in the very last scene of each of the characters, they're ensconced in their little worlds, right? They're stuck or they're solo. And the only person who is in a bar with people is the brother who, one of the brothers. And he got out. Right? And so whenever I would, as they became richer, they would inquire chiefs of staff and more houses and more layers. And I felt like it was a prison. I was like, it's a cashmere prison, but it's a prison. And so, I find it slightly depressing. I don't know, I just do.

MG: You were talking about accountability earlier. Let me in the last bit of time that we have talk about that. One of the things, and this came up in your podcast, Pivot, with Scott Galloway, who's no relation to me, but a great host, nonetheless. [KARA: He is.] One of the things that you were talking about was Mark Zuckerberg standing in front of those families who their family members have died, and they blame Facebook and Instagram and Meta for being complicit in some ways in their death. And Scott said that nothing will change before somebody goes to jail. [KARA: Yeah.] For what is happening. Do you agree with that? Do you think that, I mean, there's a lot of talk about regulation and what is and is not there. Do you think somebody involved in tech needs to go to jail so that those companies will be held accountable?

KARA SWISHER: Well, Americans never go to jail. American businesspeople, like for the banking crisis. Nobody went to jail. Cigarette? I don't think anyone went to jail. I think there needs to be regulation first and lawsuits. And I think any regulation would be nice. And I know everyone argues, I mean, there is regulation. I'm like, no, not specifically. There's a lot of specific financial regulation, a lot of specific regulation with pharmaceuticals and planes. Like that door blew off that Alaska plane and they grounded 750 planes and investigations all over the place. And slowly social media is corroding the fabric of our society. And they'd have these idiot hearings on Capitol Hill.

MG: Where does that leave us, then? I mean, you end the book with this kind of rallying cry for us to take back control. So, what does take back control mean?

KARA SWISHER: Well, right now we have an opportunity with artificial general intelligence. Like there can be rules around it. Where is our government, our elected officials? Look, I understand, I'm sure coming from Canada, looking at our government, we look like a ridiculous clown car. And we are. That is no question. But elected officials are elected, right? I like that word a lot. And as flawed as they might be, that's their responsibility to put in place protections, privacy protections, data protections. In this case, what are our guidelines around artificial general intelligence? Who should control it? Should it still be the same giant companies which are nation states making decisions for the rest of society? They are unelected, unaccountable, and you can't get rid of them. They just own the power, and they have all the money. And so, we did it before when it was breaking up baby Bell or the oil. We've done it. We've done it before. So why cannot we do it again?

MG: If we don't do it again, do you worry about, [KARA: Yes.] I mean, you have kids, and you talk about your kids a lot on the podcast, what have you. Do you worry about the world that they will inherit?

KARA SWISHER: Yeah. There's a movie, Total Recall. Did you ever see it? [MG: Mhmm.] It's an Arnold Schwarzenegger, the guy who got to control Mars. Right? Speaking of Elon Musk, like he controlled the air on Mars. What? Huh? Like, really? Because he could, the private company controlled the planet. I could see that happening easily. Easily. And they actually can be very efficient. And I think one of the problems is, as they've helped decline people's regard for government, they have taken more control. And at least with government, you have a democracy, you have some recourse, right? You can throw the bomb out. We can't throw these people out. We cannot no matter what we do. And so we've got to really charge and push our elected officials to pass these privacy laws to resist the siren call of money and politics. Very difficult. I get it, I get it. But we need to have national privacy bills. We need to call them to account for their copyright violations. We have to have stringent antitrust laws that reflect the new day. We have antitrust laws from 100 years ago, you know? And so and we have to have clarity and algorithms. What are they doing? It's your data they're using. It's your data. And someone's like, what message would you send? And I didn't put this in the book, but I'm like, Soylent Green is people, right? And it's from the Charlton Heston movie Soylent Green. But it's us. That's us!

MG: And yet, in the face of that--and this last question--I mean, this, the subtitle of this book is: A Tech Love Story. [KARA: Yep.] You say, I believe in tech. Do you still believe it?

KARA SWISHER: I do! One hundred per cent. Because look, cancer, and climate change--tech will help us solve these. Not completely, obviously, but there's so many really fascinating challenges we could, like AGI and cancer research and gene folding and improving health care outcomes, better education. There's, everything that has become a weapon can become a tool. It's the same thing like fire, right? Fire can either burn down your house or warm you. Right? And I think we have to start focusing on them as tools and not weapons. And the only way they become weapons is if the broader group of Democratic leaning countries do not take control of it. For a group and for the benefit of more people. I personally like Mark Zuckerberg, I really do. I get people get mad at me for saying it, but I do. He's a nice, he's nice, he's a nice... Nice kind of a... He's, look, he's a human being. But one of the things that used to drive me crazy was when we'd have discussions, when we were talking where he'd say, 'all of us together,' and 'as the community'--he loved the word community--have to get together. I was like, okay, but why do you control the whole community? You can't be fired. So don't give me community talk if you don't give us all the power because we don't have the power, you do. So until you can give up your power, which you want. I don't want to hear the word community out of your mouth. It's a kingdom is what it is. And at least we should just say it. Let's explain what it is. And that's what it is, a money kingdom. I think the biggest thing that's sort of laughable is VCs giving foreign policy advice. Honestly. Or, you know, just the other day Elon was talking about the size of babies’ heads and intelligence giving advice on this through caesareans. It's like, and I had a Caesarian. I'd like him to sit down. Right? It was like, sit down, sir. I don't know why we're taking our advice and our philanthropy and everything else from people who are good at coding. Okay, I don't really want you to socially engineer the world. I'm a sucker for elections and democracy, I guess. I don't know.

MG: Kara Swisher it's a great pleasure to talk to you again. This is [KARA: Thank you.] a fascinating book. Thank you very much.

KARA SWISHER: I can't wait to come to Canada. I'm going to be a Canadian journalist now.

MG: You're welcome here anytime. Thank you very much.

KARA SWISHER: Thank you.

MG: Kara Swisher's new memoir is called Burn Book: A Tech Love Story.

[Music: Instrumental]

MG: The CBC News is next, and we're going to pick up on that idea of regulating online content. The federal government in this country has introduced a new bill to curb online hate and exploitation. It is meant to make the internet safer for children and for all of us. In six minutes, we'll look at how effective that will be in making the internet a safe place. We'll talk to somebody who knows of the dangers of internet. We'll speak with the minister responsible, and we'll talk more broadly about what this bill does and ask some of the questions that critics have around the issue of privacy and freedom of expression. All of that coming your way in six minutes. My name is Matt Galloway. This is The Current. Stay with us.

[Music fades up]

Praise and concern for proposed online safety bill

Guests: Carol Todd, Arif Virani, Michael Geist

MG Hello, I'm Matt Galloway and you're listening to The Current.

SOUNDCLIP

SPEAKER: Bad actors target, our most vulnerable, our children. They spread vile hate and encourage impressionable people to commit violence. We know the harms we experience online can have real world impacts with tragic, sometimes fatal consequences. And yet, so much of this goes unchecked.

MG Unchecked, it seems, until now. That was Justice Minister Arif Virani. Yesterday afternoon, the Liberal government tabled the Online Harms Act. This sweeping bill would create a commission to enforce rules around content online and compel social media companies to take that content down if it sexualizes or bullies children. The act also seeks to amend the Criminal Code to increase sentences for spreading hate online. Supporters of this legislation say it's been a long time coming. It's been more than a decade since Amanda Todd took her own life after being targeted by an online predator. She was just 15 years old. Carol Todd is Amanda's mother. She is in Port Coquitlam, British Columbia. Carol, good morning.

CAROL TODD: Good morning, Matt.

MG What do you make of this proposed bill?

CAROL TODD: It's a long time coming, as you said. And I'm very happy that it's finally arrived and that it was tabled successfully yesterday in the House of Commons.

MG Do you think--hindsight is so difficult--but do you think something like this would have protected your daughter?

CAROL TODD: Most definitely. I remember clearly when all this started happening to her and how powerless that I felt as a parent not being able to contact social media platforms to get pictures removed. The hate, the abusive language that was coming through the internet towards Amanda for the images that were, they were victim blaming her. And the ability for law enforcement to not be able to enact and find her perpetrator right away. Those were all frustrating moments back then.

MG Why do you think it's taken so long for this regulation to come around? I mean, what you and your family went through was more than a decade ago.

CAROL TODD: Well, maybe now there's a significant, like the advancement of technology and how many children and youth actually have devices in their hands and are using the internet to... I mean, there's good ways, there's good things about the internet, you know. The education and learning, but there's also the nefarious things that happen on the internet and that is the abusive language, the predatory behaviours of others. Kids being able to have, you know, free reign and going to places they shouldn't go and the predators also finding our children and victimizing them. Just, I analogize it to our kids are goldfish in a big pond and those predators know that. And so that's really horrific to me. I can't bring Amanda back, but I certainly want to be able to support and make sure nothing happens to other children. Right?

MG As you understand it, I mean, you've been thrust into this world and have been speaking about this in the last decade on a regular basis. How has that digital landscape, how has that pond, as you put it, changed since then?

CAROL TODD: Well, it's bigger. It's more invasive into our lives. You know, with, even with adults, like, we don't go anywhere without a device in our hand. And if we forget a device at home, we'll go get it. But if we leave our wallet at home, it's okay. So it's become a habitual behaviour. Some people will call it addiction. And with our kids, I mean, 74 per cent of all youth in Canada have a device in their hand. Right? And that device now is a full-blown computer that we keep in our pocket or backpacks or whatever. Back when, in the days of Amanda, the internet was just starting. I mean, she had Facebook and she, I looked at her Instagram recently and she didn't have many followers, so there wasn't a whole lot of applications out there where she could get into, although what she did, predators found her. But now with kids, it's out there everywhere. It's part of normal life and there needs, there needed to be regulatory controls out there to support our kids because they are young. They're not fully brain developed. They can't solve big world-sized problems. And the internet is, was created as an, like an adult place. And now our kids are in it full-time.

MG Are you confident that those social media platforms will comply with the orders to take down harmful content?

CAROL TODD: No, I'm not confident. I've been doing lots of reading. I've been talking to people in the U.S., other organizations, and I'm scared. Like, I watched the senate hearing in the United States a few weeks ago and they just blew it off. Right? They say, yes, we realize that. But what has been done, this isn't a new topic. This has been circulating for years.

MG So what do we do in the face of that? If they, and we were just talking about this in the last half hour of the program, if they're, if those social media giants, the people who run those platforms, just in your words, blow off the concerns around what's online, what do we do about that?

CAROL TODD: Well, we have to keep going. We can't allow them to silence us as advocates, as parents, as concerned people. We have to keep at them. And as a citizen, it's really hard to make attachments and connect with those social media platforms because they don't listen to the common citizen. They listen to bigger organizations and ultimately, government. Right? So that's why we have to continue to, we have to pass legislation and so our governments can put pressure on them. Otherwise, they'll just keep doing what they do. And, you know, it's a monetary thing for them. So, yeah. I have, my confidence is weak, but my hope is great.

MG Just before I let you go. I mean, given everything that you and your family have been through. Does it help in some way to know that more than a decade later, Amanda's voice on this issue is still resonating in some ways?

CAROL TODD: Most definitely. It amazes me, actually, that a young girl from Port Coquitlam and, it's a video that created this voice for her. And her voice is still going. Right? So, I think it's gotten 50 million views around the world. And Amanda's voice didn't just stay in British Columbia or Canada. It spread. So, it brought us awareness and it starts a conversation, like when young kids still find it on the internet, like what we put on the internet stays forever. They start the conversation, they have it with their parents. Or when parents find it, they bring it to the attention of their children. And Amanda's story is one that needs to be shared for learning purposes, because it's a real-life story.

MG Carol, glad to talk to you. Thank you very much for this.

CAROL TODD: Thanks, Matt.

MG Carol Todd is an online safety advocate and educator. She was in Port Coquitlam, British Columbia. Arif Virani is Canada's minister of justice and attorney general. He's in our Ottawa studio. Minister, good morning to you.

ARIF VIRANI: Good morning, Matt.

MG In introducing--thanks for being here--in introducing this yesterday you said, as a father of children, you are terrified. These are your words. "Terrified of the dangers that lurk on the internet." What are you afraid of?

ARIF VIRANI: Well, I'm afraid of what just happened to Amanda Todd. I mean, I'm afraid of what we just heard about from her mother. I know it happened about ten years ago now. But it made me, Matt, every parent is the same in Canada. We just want the best for our kids. Like, it's that fundamental. And we try to empower them and teach them. And sometimes in the physical world it's about how to cross the street. But we understand that there are also rules of the road. Right now, we're trying to empower them to make a transition from a flip phone to a smartphone. The most powerful computer in the world, as Mrs. Todd just said, is in people's back pocket. But you can teach your kids a lot. But unless there's basic standards of protection for our children online, there's only so far, we can go. And that's what this legislation is about. It's about ensuring her death was not in vain. And we protect kids in this country so there are no future Amanda Todds.

MG You also noted that you're a Muslim.

ARIF VIRANI: Absolutely I did. Because like many minority communities, I'm a racialized man. I'm a minority religion man, and we know what's happened in this country in the last seven years. We've had 11 people die who are Muslim. A set of six men at a mosque in Quebec City in 2017 and the Afzaal family taken down in a van attack. And we know from the evidence in those cases how people were radicalized online, and that hatred turned into fatal violence in real life. That is what we need to address to keep Canadians safe.

MG The body--

ARIF VIRANI: That is the whole job as justice minister.

MG Well and the body that will do that is this Digital Safety Commission. Can you explain? I mean, it has extraordinary power in enforcing the rules online. Who is going to be part of this commission?

ARIF VIRANI: So that commission will be created, it will be created pursuant to the statute, and it is going to have the needed powers to develop the expertise, but to have the resources and the wherewithal to address the non-compliance that Mrs. Todd was just referring to.

MG Who would sit on it?

ARIF VIRANI: The people that will sit on it will be people who have expertise. But the most important thing for Canadians to understand is that this is not the Minister of Justice or the Prime Minister making arbitrary determinations about what's appropriate or inappropriate online. It is the platforms. The platforms take decisions that can be reviewed by the Digital Safety Commission, and the ultimate decision of the Digital Safety Commission can be reviewed in a court of law. There are many actors that are involved that are non-governmental in deciding this material. The actual Digital Safety Commissioner, Matt, will be voted on in the House of Commons and the Senate of Canada. So Canadians, through their elected representatives, have a say on who this person is because they need to have confidence in their quality, in their objectivity and their impartiality.

MG Well, and it's important in part because the concerns that have been raised before this bill was even tabled from the Conservative leader, Pierre Poilievre and others, is that this act is an attack on freedom of speech. How are you going to go about ensuring and reassuring Canadians that this isn't going to infringe? The work that you're doing isn't going to infringe on their freedom of expression online?

ARIF VIRANI: So I'd encourage Canadians to read the bill and encourage all parliamentarians to read the bill. What they'll find in there is a definition of hatred that is not my definition. It's not something I've just fabricated. It is entrenched in Supreme Court jurisprudence. What we're talking about when we talk about hate, we're talking about expressions of detestation and vilification. What we are not talking about is an insult, offensive language, things that might be hurtful to a person or to a community.

MG What's the distinction between--you've used this phrase before--awful but lawful? How do you go about determining what is awful but still lawful?

ARIF VIRANI: Matt, that's ultimately for a court to determine. But what I'll say to you is that people insult groups or people or races or religions all of the time. That's going to continue to be awful, but lawful. But when you call for the extermination of a people, you're hitting a hate standard that's already been entrenched by the courts. The other thing I think people should really understand is that at every decision-making point, freedom of expression is entrenched in the decision makers code of what they're supposed to be guided by, whether that's a platform like Facebook, whether that's the digital safety commissioner, whether that's the court. They always have to keep freedom of expression top of mind.

MG But you understand you need to step lightly on this.

ARIF VIRANI: Of course I do. And Matt, people have also said to me, Minister Virani, why did it take three and half years to develop this bill? I'll tell you why. Because we treaded carefully. We looked domestically, we consulted extensively. We looked internationally. Australia has moved on this. France, Germany, sometimes they've moved too quickly, too fast, too far. And they've been actually curtailing their approach and altering it so that they're not overbroad in what is coming down. Freedom of expression is critical. More so for me as justice minister to defend. It's a constitutionally protected right. I will always vigilantly defend it. What's important is people understanding that you, what is protected at its core, at its highest is political speech, which is critical to democracy. What isn't protected is violence and what is being, what kids are being subjected to, like Amanda Todd, is violence.

MG You just heard Carol Todd say she's not confident that those tech giants will actually enforce any rules that you put out. We saw your government try to get Meta to pay for news. Meta just took its ball and left and blocked Canadian news on its platforms. How difficult is it going to be to actually enforce the law and get these tech giants to play?

ARIF VIRANI: So, I want tech giants to be playing, but I want them to be playing responsibly.

MG But why do you believe that they will?

ARIF VIRANI: Well, I believe that they will because some have shown and demonstrated an interest in doing this. I think they have a vested interest in ensuring they have the confidence of Canadians, particularly Canadian parents. I think what they will see in this legislation is an extension of a hand to say, we want you to work with us. We need to see a digital safety plan. You need to be indicating how are you going to reduce risk and you need to report on this back to us on how it's going.

MG Well, why would you, why would you put any faith in them? I mean, part of this is you trusting that they're going to do this work. But why are you willing to extend that faith to them?

ARIF VIRANI: Matt, there's both a carrot and a stick. The carrot is what I was just describing in terms of taking their trust and safety mechanisms and accentuating and elevating them and making them transparent. That's really critical. Right now decisions are made about what you put out to the world and what appears in your feed, as Matt Galloway, that are being made behind closed doors by a private company. You have no idea how the decision was made and what decision was made. We're going to render that transparent. But secondly, the stick is penalties. And the penalties are significant in this legislation. The administrative penalty can touch six per cent of global revenue of an entity like Facebook or ten million dollars, whichever is higher. If an order issues and they contravene an order, it's eight per cent of global revenue or 25 million dollars. That goes at the heart of the financial imperative that is driving their behaviour right now. That cannot be the only imperative. There's got to be a safety imperative that is equal. Canadian safety is equal to the financial imperative that is driving these companies right now.

MG Just before I let you go, can I go back to something you just said when you talked about, you want to render how, what I see in my feed, you want to render that transparent. Does that mean that the government wants to open up the algorithm of these companies? That what, you know, is presented on my Instagram, what's presented on Facebook, that that algorithm needs to be opened up?

ARIF VIRANI: What it means is that we want transparency on the part of the platforms. In terms of the digital safety plan, it also means empowering you, the individual, Matt Galloway. You can start to curate your feed. You can block a user’s content from appearing in your feed. You can flag other content and say this constitutes child pornography. This constitutes an instance where people are encouraging a child to harm themselves. That's about keeping Canadians safe and establishing those standards that we need. People talk to me all the time about how, why is it that we have standards for buildings? People design buildings all the time in different ways that are quite beautiful and lovely, but there's, it has a baseline level of safety. We need the same level of baseline safety in the design of internet platforms where people are spending more and more of their time. That's critical and that's what this legislation will do.

MG Arif Virani, we'll leave it there. Thank you very much.

ARIF VIRANI: Thank you.

MG Arif Virani is Canada's minister of justice and the attorney general. Michael Geist is a law professor at the University of Ottawa. He holds Canada Research Chair in internet and E-commerce law. And he's been listening in. Michael, good morning to you.

MICHAEL GEIST: Hi, good morning.

MG You were saying yesterday that in some ways you gave this bill a B-plus. What's good about it?

MICHAEL GEIST: Well, I think in some ways the expectations were so low given some of the earlier government digital regulation, the streaming bill and the news bill and where they started with this. I mean, the minister talked about many years of consultation. What he didn't mention is that back in 2021, they actually put forward what their plan was as part of...

MG And it was roundly criticized.

MICHAEL GEIST: It was widely criticized. And so that was the starting point. I think that they did listen. And I think that especially in terms of focusing on this notion of a duty to act responsibly on the part of the platforms, on focusing on specific kinds of harms and that I think most would be on board with, I think they get some of those issues right. They didn't turn straight to things like takedowns and website blocking. Instead, they tried to focus on, what does it mean for a platform to act responsibly? What are some specific kinds of harms that are sources of concern? And on that front, I think they've done a pretty good job.

MG Will this legislation be enough to protect children? We began this conversation in speaking about what happened to Amanda Todd a decade ago. Will this protect children like her?

MICHAEL GEIST: Well, I think we have to be realistic that there are a lot of harms out there. Some are online, some are offline. And the idea that a single piece of legislation is going to cure all the ills, and there are many that arise in this area, I think is unrealistic. Will it have an impact? Will the companies comply? The kind of question that you asked a few moments ago, I think they're much more likely to. I think some of the objections we saw with some of the prior legislation was, frankly, grounded in really problematic legislation, wasn't necessarily opposition to regulation itself. And some of the kinds of provisions that we see here, they're pretty common. We see them in the U.K., we see them in Europe. We see some of the approaches in Australia...

MG Which provisions being, essentially, taking down, quickly taking down, offensive material, sexualizing material, material that is bullying children, for example.

MICHAEL GEIST: Yeah. There's only, not bullying children. There's only a couple of kinds of content that are required to be taken down immediately, actually. So, the focus is not on takedown, it's on having a plan. It's on living up to that plan, being transparent about it, as you heard about giving people the ability to block users to flag content. So, there's a number of those kinds of things that are in the legislation. It's not necessarily about blocking. There is some references to blocking, but for very narrow pieces of legislation.

MG You raised concerns about something that I asked the minister about, this digital safety commission, which does have extraordinary power. What are your concerns when it comes to that commission?

MICHAEL GEIST: Yeah, no, I do have real concerns there. And the idea that the Canadian public will somehow be in a position to get a vote on who the chair is, is cold comfort. When you take a look at what is almost a new CRTC, it's almost a new CRTC commission here, where it's got the power to issue rulings on making content inaccessible, investigations, demand information that, of any information it wants. It can hold hearings, and if it decides, can close those to the public. It's required to establish a ton of regulations, codes of conduct, and all of those kinds of powers don't have a whole lot of oversight. So there isn't really anyone here watching the watchers. There isn't an extra layer in there of that, that you have say envisioned on the privacy side to ensure that it strikes the balance right. It's an awful lot of power being handed over to what could be as few as three people in this commission.

MG Who should be part of that commission, do you think? I mean, not specific names, but how do you go about choosing the people that the broad public would trust with that power?

MICHAEL GEIST: Yeah, I think it's going to be, this is going to be an exceptionally big challenge, you know, and so I don't know the individuals. I think you need people who bring a range of perspectives. So I'm not sure that three to five commissioners, frankly, is the right number, because I think you need to ensure that you've got people who come from civil liberties and freedom of expression perspective so that they are willing to ensure that those perspectives, the privacy perspectives, the equality perspectives are all brought to bear as part of the analysis, as well as those who have been steeped in some of the harms that take place online. And we've got something that's being started from scratch rather remarkably. The law even says that there are no specific rules of evidence for this entity. And so when I think you move in that direction, the way you get confidence is to build in rules of evidence and ensuring that you've got a wide range of perspectives, as well as oversight on the kinds of decisions that get made.

MG If you strip the politics out of this, how concerned are you about, you know, the issues that have been raised around limiting free speech?

MICHAEL GEIST: I, well, listen, those are always going to be significant issues. And striking the balance is going to be difficult.

MG What does that balance look like given the aims of this act?

MICHAEL GEIST: Well, the balance on sorting of the issues, and certainly obviously you started with Amanda Todd and around those issues I don't think you've got the expression issues are nearly as pronounced as they are once you get into things like hate online. Which, you know, I, listen, I'm part of the Jewish community. We've faced some enormous challenges over the last number of months with anti-Semitism. And so, there is a need to address these issues directly. But at the same time, we've got to recognize that not everything is hate. And there sometimes is a tendency to cast it in that framing, or at least a fear that governments or other agencies might do so. And so I think that there is an effort, because the way they've structured this, there is an effort to try to ensure that at least the platform perspective is more about acting responsibly. Where some people have been focused on in terms of over an overreach is in some of the Criminal Code and Human Rights Act provisions that are also found in the law, with incredibly severe penalties up to life in jail in some circumstances. And the prospect of just this massive influx of complaints before the Human Rights Commission as part of the Human Rights Act. And that's where I think some of the rubber might hit the road in sorting through some of these challenges.

MG Just before I let you go, I mean, technology moves so quickly. We are now seeing, you think of the sora, the artificial intelligence voice prompted videos that are being created, things that six months ago people would have laughed out and said that's not actually possible. Is it, given how quickly technology moves, is it going to be possible to have an act that is going to be able to meet the moment, if I can put it that way? That's going to keep up with how quickly technology is evolving.

MICHAEL GEIST: You know, I'm tempted to say no, that in fact things are moving so quickly that these challenges are relentless. At the same time, we're seeing movement on a number of different fronts. There’re these issues, there's of course, AI related issues, and there are relationships there. You know, I think when you asked about algorithmic transparency and you start thinking about deepfakes, I think this legislation could have done a better job, frankly, with a more clear definition on deepfakes. So I think that there, we are seeing regulatory action, or at least policy development on a number of different fronts. The starting point, though, and I'd go back to it and the way the legislation tries to frame this, it's about acting responsibly. And that can adapt to changing technologies over time.

MG A B-plus isn't a bad mark if that's what you're giving it. That's not a bad mark.

MICHAEL GEIST: No, it's a really good. My students will tell you that's a really good mark from me because I can be a hard marker.

MG Michael, good to talk to you. Thank you very much.

MICHAEL GEIST: Okay. Thanks so much for having me.

MG Michael Geist is a law professor at the University of Ottawa. He holds the Canada Research Chair in internet and E-commerce law. Well, coming up after your regional update:

SOUNDCLIP

SPEAKER: My patients with embryos frozen can not only not have an embryo transfer with me to become pregnant, but they also can't take their embryos elsewhere. It's wasted time and money.

[Music: Instrumental]

MG Fertility clinics and their patients in Alabama are grappling with what to do. The Alabama Supreme Court ruled that human embryos are legally considered to be children. What exactly does that mean for in vitro fertilization? For those who are would-be parents. We're going to speak with a lawyer in Alabama who has a personal stake in this issue. People are watching in that state and in many other jurisdictions as well. That conversation coming up in 90 seconds. My name is Matt Galloway. This is The Current. Stick around.

[Music fades up]

Legal concerns for would-be parents amid Alabama embryo ruling

Guests: AshLeigh Meyer Dunham

MG: Hello again. I'm Matt Galloway and you're listening to The Current. Last week, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that human embryos are legally considered to be children. Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Tom Parker cited Christian scripture in his ruling. In an interview uploaded the same day as that ruling, the Chief Justice called for a Christian theocracy in the United States.

SOUNDCLIP

TOM PARKER: God created government, and the fact that we have let it go into the possession of others is heartbreaking.

MG: This ruling from the Alabama Supreme Court means that some Alabama in vitro fertilization clinics have shut down, at least for now. Critics say this is an attack on reproductive rights and bodily autonomy. Even some Republican Party stalwarts are worried about the impact on IVF treatment, including the party's presidential frontrunner, Donald Trump.

SOUNDCLIP

DONALD TRUMP: I strongly support the availability of IVF for couples who are trying to have a precious little beautiful baby.

MG: AshLeigh Meyer Dunham has been trying to sort through this chaos. She is a lawyer in Alabama, specializes in cases involving assisted reproductive technology. She's also a mother whose daughter was conceived through IVF. AshLeigh, good morning.

ASHLEIGH MEYER DUNHAM: Good morning.

MG: What went through your mind when you heard this ruling?

ASHLEIGH MEYER DUNHAM: I have to say, the very first thing that went through my mind was heartbreak for the couples that lost their chance at having a child. I thought it was just absolutely terrible that this happened. But when I started reading the opinion, it became very, very concerning for me, for not only my clients, but also for myself personally. And then when the IVF clinic started shutting down, things became very chaotic.

MG: I want to talk about that chaos. But legally, I mean, as a lawyer, let's walk through a little bit of what happened here. As you understand it, what was the rationale in the ruling for considering embryos to have the same legal status as children?

ASHLEIGH MEYER DUNHAM: So essentially, they used a law that is very, very, very old. And they interpreted it to say that embryos were entitled to personhood, basically making them the same as a living, breathing person who has actually been born, carried to term, born and as the person who's carrying that child. So, the moment that life was created, so the, you know, life at conception has now become the norm in Alabama. And as of Friday, at least 14 other states now have the legislatures trying to put in this exact same thing in their states.

MG: This came out of one specific story, where there were embryos that were taken from a tank in an IVF clinic, and they were dropped on the floor. And the court had said that the parents to-be, I suppose, could sue that clinic because wrongful death laws would also apply to unborn children, and that includes embryos. Is that right?

ASHLEIGH MEYER DUNHAM: That's right. So, at any point in time that after those embryos are created, if anything happens, whether it's something you know, once they're transferred or something happens in the clinic, they're considered persons. So, from the moment of conception, it doesn't just, it doesn't just impact IVF families, it impacts everyone.

MG: That whole idea of personhood, that life begin, children are, have rights at the moment of conception.

ASHLEIGH MEYER DUNHAM: Right. And that has been an ongoing agenda for at least some people in the United States. And that is now, I mean, there is numerous congressmen who are backing the life at conception, the life conception rule to go across the entire U.S. So, it's not just an Alabama problem, it is a United States problem.

MG: You're in Alabama, though. I mean, can you understand as somebody who is from that state, lives in that state, can you understand the impetus for this and where this is coming from?

ASHLEIGH MEYER DUNHAM: Personally, you know, I went through IVF, and I prayed for my embryos, but I didn't pray for an embryo. I prayed for a child. So, while I understand that once you find out that you're pregnant or once that a pregnancy occurs, that that's what you wanted. But that's not what you really wanted. That's not the end goal. The baby is the end goal. So, I think that it's rooted in absolute, oh, a misunderstanding of the entire scientific process that creates a child. And what these people are going through. I never wanted an embryo. I wanted a baby. And my daughter wasn't here. I didn't have that baby until I held her in my arms. So, to regulate that before she could even be implanted is ludicrous.

MG: What are the legal complications that a ruling like this has created? I mentioned that there are some IVF clinics that have temporarily, at the very least, shut down. But again, from a lawyer's perspective, legally, what's going on in the wake of this ruling?

ASHLEIGH MEYER DUNHAM: So, from a lawyer's perspective, while the attorney general has come out and said we will not prosecute clinics for doing IVF and creating embryos, you have to think about the implications for the IVF clinics. So if something happens during a transfer and say the embryo does not transfer all the way into the uterus or, and it comes back down and they have to do another transfer, or if there is at any point in time they can say that the reason an embryo arrests, which is when the embryo stops developing, at any point in time, they can say that, they could blame the doctors for this.

MG: And those doctors could be sued for wrongful death.

ASHLEIGH MEYER DUNHAM: They could be sued for wrongful death. Exactly. And so that's a huge issue. It put a lot of pressure on these doctors. So of course, they're going to shut down. And not only that, if we start shipping them out of state, you know, at this point in time it's considered, they're considered a child. Is that child trafficking? We have to worry about those things as well. And then in addition to that, even if we don't want to consider IVF families, we have to consider people who get pregnant. If you have a high-risk pregnancy from the moment of conception, your body can now be regulated by the government, and you could be prosecuted for a miscarriage. Or at least, at the very least, be investigated by the police for it.

MG: And so, given all of that, what are you hearing from your clients about what this might mean for them?

ASHLEIGH MEYER DUNHAM: I'm hearing a lot of clients say that they're terrified to continue their journey with surrogates in Alabama, and we have a ton of surrogates in Alabama. I have clients who can't have their embryos shipped to Alabama because the main embryo shipping companies will not ship to Alabama because the embryos are not safe here. I have clients who were supposed to start IVF to create embryos, and they don't want to create embryos in the state. So, I have clients who are in other countries. I have clients in Canada, I have clients in China, I have clients in France and Germany who don't want to do anything in Alabama because of this. Because what if their surrogate, the embryo doesn't take, and their clinic is held liable? Or what if the embryo does take and the surrogate miscarries? So, I have tons of clients who are very concerned about that. And I also have friends who were still going through IVF who can't--they don't have access to their embryos, and they can't finish their treatment. I have people who've lost thousands of dollars. And who's held liable for that? These people who had a chance at a baby.

MG: Can you understand why those clinics have pumped the brakes on this? I mean, the fears that they have that they could suddenly end up in the legal crosshairs.

ASHLEIGH MEYER DUNHAM: Absolutely. Those clinics have every reason to be concerned, even though the attorney general says I will not prosecute. What about the next attorney general? Or what about a D.A. who decides that they want to make a name for themselves? Chief Justice Tom Parker, he made sure that he got his name in the news, and he made sure he got his agenda going forward before he was no longer allowed to be a Supreme Court Justice anymore. So, where's, you know, the baby Tom Justice, who comes up, who comes along, who wants to make a name for himself? That's what we have to worry about at this point. And we've given them just the ammo to do it.

MG: There's a bill that's been proposed in the state legislature that would attempt to address some of the things that you've laid out. And I guess one of the things it would do is stop the ruling from applying to un-implanted embryos. Is that, if that were to pass, would that be enough to offer protection to not just your clients, but the people that you've been talking about who worry about what this is actually going to mean?

ASHLEIGH MEYER DUNHAM: Temporarily, it may until it is challenged. So the problem is, is that the opinion goes to the Alabama Constitution. So that is a huge issue. We can't fix it with this Band-Aid. While it is a great start the person, whoever it who wants to use the ammo that the Supreme Court has provided, they can now use that to overturn any rule or any law or any bill in Alabama. They can overturn it later on unless we amend our Constitution, which can only be done in November. And even then, there's a complicated process before that happens. What needs to happen is that the congressmen and women need to support the Access to Family Building Act, which Senator Tammy Duckworth is trying to push forward, because that would make it a nationwide protection for IVF and other art services.

MG: What do you make of the fact that even Republicans have taken an issue with this ruling? Mike Pence, former vice president, evangelical, anti-abortion. He himself and his family used IVF to start a family. He supports the treatments. He has said that those who use fertility treatments need to be protected by law.

ASHLEIGH MEYER DUNHAM: What they've said are very chosen words. A lot of these same people have also voted for the Life Begins at Conception Act that they tried to get past. They're the ones who are pushing to make sure that embryos have personhood, who have said that life begins at conception, to regulate from the moment of conception. So, while they're saying this right now, it's because of the public backlash. It's because of the outrage that has happened. This is not, their responses are political at best. When you start looking at their voting histories, just make sure you check that before you say, okay, I actually agree with these people now. Everyone who's looking at voting coming up, they need to look at what the voting history was. Did they vote for life at conception? Did they say previously that they wanted to regulate these things? And if you even look at our, you know, at Donald Trump's words, he himself used very, very specific words in what he had to say. So, while he's saying I support IVF and I support building families, he's not saying it for everyone. He's limiting it. And that's where we have to worry. Is if we get some IVF protection, is it going to only be for married couples? Is it only going to be for people, for a man and a woman, who are married? Those are things we also have to be concerned about.

MG: Just in the last couple of minutes that we have, what do you think this is really about?

ASHLEIGH MEYER DUNHAM: I think, honestly, it's about controlling women's reproductive rights. I think they, you know, came for Dobbs and they said in their Dobbs decision, you know, we're coming for, basically, they said we're coming for conception--for contraception.

MG: This is the ruling that overturned Roe v Wade. Dobbs.

ASHLEIGH MEYER DUNHAM: Yes. The--Dobbs. The one that overturned Roe v Wade, which gave women the right to choose. And at this point in time, they're coming for contraception, and they're coming for regulating women's bodies. So that is a huge issue. Are we going to be able to, at this point in time, make any choices in our marriages or in our bedroom or any other place? So, this is a huge problem and I think that we do have to worry about the implications of this across the U.S.

MG: What happens now? You have an election coming up in November.

ASHLEIGH MEYER DUNHAM: We vote. We speak and we vote. Tomorrow the, you know, the women of the state are going down to Montgomery to have a chat with our legislators. [MG: Have a chat.] You know, to tell them, hey. Yes, a very serious chat and tell them that we will not stand for this. But this is not enough. And I don't think people realize that. We've got to do it on a national level. But more than anything, we've got to amend. Well, we've got to amend Alabama's constitution and it needs to be fixed because it's horrendous. But on a national level, we need to protect people's access to building their families.

MG: This is a complicated story. It's also personal for you. And I really do appreciate you walking us through the details of it, but also how it impacts you and how it will impact others. AshLeigh, thank you very much.

ASHLEIGH MEYER DUNHAM: Thank you.

MG: AshLeigh Meyer Dunham is a lawyer who specializes in assisted reproductive technology. We reached her in Birmingham, Alabama.

[Music: Instrumental]

Study finds Amazon rainforest still at risk of tipping point

Guests: Marina Hirota

MG: This is The Current on CBC Radio and the CBC Listen app. My name is Matt Galloway.

SOUNDCLIP

[Foreign speech]

MG: That's Brazil's president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, vowing to end deforestation in the Amazon. During his predecessor, Jair Bolsonaro's term, the Amazon shrunk by more than 34,000km² from human activity alone. That's an area the size of Belgium. Now, a year in, Lula's government has cracked down on illegal logging and made it harder for farmers to raise animals in protected lands. But a new study says the Amazon is still on course to reach a critical tipping point. Marina Hirota is one of the authors of that study. She's a professor at the Federal University of Santa Catarina. We've reached her in Florianopolis, Brazil. Marina, hello.

MARINA HIROTA: Hello, Matt. Nice to talk to you.

MG: Great to have you here. What do you mean when you say that the Amazon is on course to reach a tipping point?

MARINA HIROTA: Yeah, I think that's a very important question. Right. So, the idea is that when we reach a tipping point in any type of system, the idea that we can expect an acceleration of change, an acceleration that we cannot really act against the same way we would have acted against before the tipping point. So if deforestation keeps going at the same rate, for instance, and it, like, crosses a tipping point, eventually any action that we would or we could take now will not stop the system to really convert into a non-forest state or a degraded state, because it's going to accelerate and it's going to, in the internal dynamics of the system, will lead to a different state and keep the system in a different state. Deforestation is one of the factors that has like a value or a tipping point, so to say.

MG: What have you seen that would lead you to believe that the Amazon has reached that stage?

MARINA HIROTA: Yeah. In general, what we see already happening and that we can expect are three potential states or degraded states. One of them is like a white sand savannah, a specific type of savannah that already occurs in the Amazon because it stands on sand, sandy soils. But the ones that can be can trap the system, the forest in whites savannah state is way less diverse, so less tree diversity and less grass diversity. And we are already seeing this happening in the local scale. And the second one, degraded state, open canopy and invaded by grasses that are not even from Brazil or South America in general. So, they are invasive. And because they are invasive, they do not allow other forms to grow and thrive. And the third one is a closed canopy degraded state. And it's degraded mostly because it's trapped in a successional stage, that it does not become like a mature forest because of land use change, because of fires, and because of frequent and more intense droughts. So, it's a mixture of all the factors we point out as potential stressors for vegetation. And this one is, although its closed canopy function like, evapotranspiration, carbon storage can be very different than a mature forest. And it's very, very, very poor in terms of biodiversity. Is mono dominant. One or two species.

MG: Why are these things happening? I mean, as I mentioned, when Lula came back into office as president, he promised to end deforestation. We've seen deforestation falling to a five year low in the Amazon. But what else is going on that is leading to those changes within the forest?

MARINA HIROTA: Yeah, in general, a lot of illegalities in the Amazon basin. We see even deforestation. Most of it is illegal. In mining, like illegal mining, for a huge part of it and the expansion of the agribusiness, agricultural expansion and also cattle raising expansion. We see lots of different activities illegally increasing in the Amazon and deforesting a huge part of the forest. And I think now we can see that deforestation is going down because the government is regaining momentum in a monitoring and punishing illegalities in terms of deforestation and other illegal activities. But we still have to do better, and we have to aim at zero deforestation mostly, or at least, to zero deforestation illegally in the Amazon, you know, most of it. But other actions from the federal government in Brazil are pretty much related to restoration calls and ways to restore the forests. And it's very important that these actions, they are coordinated with like states and municipalities because, yeah, only the federal government imposing something will not really take a huge forest. But we need a coordination among different governance levels in Brazil.

MG: What impact has climate change had on this and global warming in particular?

MARINA HIROTA: I would say that global warming in general will affect--and this is already, we have evidence of this, this is already proven--they will affect and is affecting already different climate regimes in terms of temperature and precipitation all over the basin. It's different and it's heterogeneous. It's not all the same like decreasing water and increasing temperature. It varies all over the basin. So, for instance, if we think about northwestern Amazon, the historical time series already points out to an increase in rainfall and increase also in extremes related to flooding. So, more water. And temperatures increase. Whereas in southeastern Amazon we have a decrease in total amount of water fall per year, and also an increase in the length of dry season and intensity of the dry season is also increasing, and also the temperature is increasing. In general, the temperature is increasing everywhere, but water scarcity has been heterogeneously changing all over the basin. So, this, we already we cannot say it's totally related to global warming. But it has the connection to it because as the temperature of the planet is raising, we can also see this changing all over the basin.

MG: You said that parts of the Amazon could end up in a non-forest state. What would that mean for the people who live in the Amazon?

MARINA HIROTA: If I think about myself and my livelihood today, it would be someone knocking on my door and saying, okay, you move out because we are going to tear down your, the building I live and we're going to take off your car and close all the supermarkets. Because, you know, it's like okay, you have no place to live, nothing to really eat, walking now.

MG: Your entire life would disappear.

MARINA HIROTA: Exactly. Because they live from the forest, they take all the subsidies of their lives from rivers from the forest they manage all over the place and also their homes. So, the people in the Amazon really depend on the forest to live. And if the forest disappears, their livelihoods disappear. And this is exactly how I'm saying and how it's happening. They are, they have to resist. And how you can live if you are just resisting?

MG: What do we do about this? I mean, what has to be done practically to try to, if not slow this down than prevent it from actually happening?

MARINA HIROTA: It has to be collectively because alone we cannot really do anything. So, it has to be science, governments and peoples in general. We have to at the individual level, at least in Brazil. But I think all over the planet in general, we really need to rethink about our choices. Each one of us in the planet can really think about what we can do as a citizen of the planet, because the Earth system doesn't really recognize boundaries and it flows from one place to the other. So eventually everybody's going to feel something related to what's going on in one place, specifically in this case the Amazon, but other ecosystems all over the planet. And then if we think about governance, the Amazon is not only in Brazil. We are nine countries that encompass the entire Amazon. So, we have to be coordinated. Colombia is a good example of actions that are taking place and then are very moving forward. But we have to be together. So again, it has to be collective. And of course, we have to be connected and aligned to all the actions to mitigate and adapt to climate change in general and decrease emissions, or greenhouse gases.

MG: We're out of time. But let me ask you just this finally and briefly, you study the forests, but what do you love about the Amazon?

MARINA HIROTA: For me, I was a modeler, Matt. I was a modeler. So, I had never been in the forest or in the savannas. And when I went there first time, I am speechless, to say. I cannot really put into words, but I felt really connected to nature in a way I had never been connected to, you know? So, for me, keeping the forest standing and thriving and resisting means that we have a chance to really show our respect to the forest and not only to animals and plants, but to the peoples. So, the people in the Amazon, they are amazing. They approve of resistance, and they resist so many things. I really connect to the courage, to the way of living they have. So, they really have this amazing connection and interaction with the forest that really inspires me. So, I am really, I cannot really say with words, but I would say that it really connects me to nature. And it transports me to places that I really, not as a scientist, but as a person, as a human being on the planet that really changes me every time I go there. So, I don't live there, but it changes me every time I go there to do research, to talk to people and to really learn from what the interactions that I can see in the forest. It's great.

MG: Marina, thank you for talking to us and taking us to the forest. I mean, you've kind of transported us there. I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you very much.

MARINA HIROTA: Thank you very much, Matt. I'm really glad to participate. And anything you need from me, I'm available. Thank you.

MG: Thank you. All the best. Thank you.

MARINA HIROTA: All the best.

MG: Marina Hirota is the co-author of a study looking at a state of the Amazon. The paper is published in the scientific journal nature. And we reached her in Florianopolis, Brazil. That is The Current for this Tuesday. Q is up next on CBC Radio One. If you missed anything in the program, including our interview with Kara Swisher at the beginning of the show, she is somebody who, as she said, loves to speak truth to power about technology. Has been writing about the internet since the internet was just in its very infancy, and has a new book out, Burn Book, in which she names names, goes after people that she says should know better when it comes to the work that they do online and the impact of that work. People like Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg and others. She has a lot to say, and we couldn't fit everything into our conversation. So, a longer version of that discussion is available on the podcast. You'll find that on the CBC Listen app or wherever you get your podcasts. My name is Matt Galloway. Thanks for listening to The Current. I'll talk to you tomorrow.

[Music: Instrumental]

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

CBC would like to acknowledge the support of the Broadcasting Accessibility Fund.

Tuesday February 27, 2024 Full Transcript

More Stories Like This