I cannot stress how disappointed I was to learn of the opposition. To me, it seemed like a slam-dunk of a conversation. On March 4, the day that the United States imposed its trade war on Canada, we had a chance as the Nation’s Capital to say that we would reassume control of our communication choices and disavow a platform which increasingly serves to undermine and deregulate democratic institutions. And yet… and yet. We found the conversation pivoting to individual freedoms and trolls and, in my view, a narrow take on what we had in front of us.
Technology has always been positioned as somewhat of a threat to shared values and human connection. Think of the literature and film giants that discusses this theme, some that come to mind for me are a Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, or Videodrome by David Cronenberg. Both serve as cautionary tales for what can happen when we don’t critically examine the media we consume for what rights and freedoms it can take from us.
In the case of X as a platform, the City chooses to bolster a platform that is actively eroding the reliability and trustworthiness of media by dismissing fact-checkers and reinforcing special interest narratives. Plainly speaking, we lend X the City’s credibility as a trustworthy institution by staying on there, and we reinforce X’s position as a reliable source of information if we don’t redirect our residents elsewhere for reliable information.
So where does this leave us, other than disappointed with the vote today? I think the conversation around the horseshoe at committee should underscore the value of investing in made-in-Ottawa solutions to public engagement that don’t involve outsourcing it to a third-party platform.
We have been undertaking a review of the City’s Public Engagement Strategy that considers non-tech (gasp!) approaches to building relationships with residents, a file that I have remained active on since elected.
I want to see the City build greater transparency for how and when it engages with the public for what kinds of decisions, and I want residents to be able to rely on how that information will be used and shared back in reporting. I think the City can use its Public Engagement Strategy to share out what technology tools it will use and why, and also be very clear how, when, and why they won’t be engaging with the public on various items and will instead share information.
If we are unhappy with the way technology serves us and can’t be counted on to reinforce our values as a democratic institution, we don’t need to stay there. The tail shouldn’t wag the dog.
Next month I’ll be moving a motion to reinforce the commitment the City of Ottawa is making to residents in how it engages on its own terms, and I will be fighting for greater transparency and predictability in our public engagement tools to rebuild the credibility and trustworthiness that we can’t count on anyone else to provide.
Ottawa deserves leadership in its relationship with the public, and we shouldn’t rely on tech giants to make it or break it.
Today, the Finance and Corporate Services Committee voted down Councillor Dudas’ motion to move away from social media platform X as a City communications tool (you can read the motion here). I am grateful to Councillor Dudas for her leadership on this.
I’m hearing from a lot of residents who want answers about why flooding happened, and how we can prevent it from happening again. I certainly want those answers as well.