Article content continued

Not feasible, said Kee, at least on such short notice. Finally, the broad definition of “election advertising” written into the law was a problem: it includes any ad “taking a position on an issue with which a registered party or candidate is associated,” which might literally change from minute to minute during a campaign. What’s the technological solution to that? (Even if Google could hire a billion human editors to do that work, could the company be sure of complying with C-76?)

So Google, the accused social poisoner and wrecker of democracy, decided to obey the law by cancelling all political ad sales in Canada during the upcoming regulated period. You might suppose that they would be thanked for withdrawing the poison at their own undoubtedly significant expense. Instead, the Liberals, like the restaurant patron who complains that the food is lousy and the portions are so small, flew into a genuine rage. Nathaniel Erskine-Smith whined that “We are too small for you … You are too important, and we are just not important enough for Google to take us seriously.”

Erskine-Smith and other committee members demanded to know exactly how soon Google would be bringing political ads back to Canada, furiously trying to pin down a 2023 date. In the video of the meeting they seem quite desperate about this — as one might expect from representatives of a technologically aware major political party, one with well-developed demographic targets that can really only be attacked with Google’s help. If you read the transcript of the meeting, or better yet view Erskine-Smith’s cranky demeanour in the archived video, you will understand that the Liberal dialogue with big tech really has the goal of being seen to do something about social media and online advertising without flustering the golden goose.