Correct Answer: how far a removal duty for platforms should reach
Passage Reference: how far the duty should reach into speech that is legal but disputed
Why this is correct: The columnist asks how far the duty should reach into legal but disputed speech, and who pays for mistakes. Every speaker answers that.
Tips: For a “mainly about” question, read the last sentence of the first paragraph. It names the hard questions that every speaker answers.
Why the other options are wrong:
- whether Canada should ban anonymous accounts: Anonymous accounts are never discussed. The column is about a duty to remove content.
- how newspapers can win back young readers: Campeau publishes a newspaper, but winning readers is never her point. She talks about labels and reach.
- how the police should handle online threats: Police are never mentioned. The column is about what platforms must remove and how mistakes are fixed.
Correct Answer: Bruno Chiang
Passage Reference: He accepts faster removal of plainly illegal posts, but only with narrow definitions, notice to the user, and a quick way to restore a post
Why this is correct: Bruno Chiang accepts faster removal of plainly illegal posts, but only with conditions. He wants a quick way to restore a post, and the platform pays costs when it removes too much. That is a remedy for mistakes.
Tips: Several speakers accept faster removal, so compare what each one adds. Ask whose condition is about fixing a removal that went wrong.
Why the other options are wrong:
- Edda Lozier: Edda Lozier wants a 24-hour deadline, so she accepts faster removal. But she asks for inspectable records, not a way to restore posts removed by mistake.
- Noa Campeau: Noa Campeau wants labels and reduced reach instead of deletion, so she is not accepting faster removal.
- Teo Maguire: Teo Maguire supports the deadline, but his condition is community reporting channels and trained reviewers, not a remedy for wrong removals.
Correct Answer: records of platforms breaking pledges once outrage paid
Passage Reference: “Voluntary promises fall apart the moment outrage starts paying,”
Why this is correct: Lozier wants a legal duty because, in her words, “Voluntary promises fall apart the moment outrage starts paying.” Records of platforms breaking pledges when outrage paid would back her.
Tips: Find Lozier’s quote to the senators. Pick the evidence that would prove her point about voluntary promises.
Why the other options are wrong:
- cases where satire was removed by mistake: Satire removed by mistake is the harm Chiang fears from a loose duty, so it would support his remedies, not Lozier’s case.
- studies of falsehoods spreading during elections: Falsehoods spreading in elections would support Campeau’s call for labels and reduced reach, not Lozier’s argument about voluntary promises.
- a study of how long appeals take to finish: Slow appeals would support Chiang’s demand for a quick way to restore posts, not Lozier’s point about broken promises.
Correct Answer: trained reviewers would handle reports, not filters alone
Passage Reference: only if the duty includes reporting channels run with affected communities and reviewers trained to read context, rather than keyword filters alone
Why this is correct: Maguire supports the deadline only if the duty includes community reporting channels. He also wants reviewers trained to read context, rather than keyword filters alone.
Tips: Look for “but only if” in Maguire’s last sentence. Notice the word “rather”, which tells you what he does not want on its own.
Why the other options are wrong:
- keyword filters would screen every post first: Maguire does not ask for filters first. He objects to relying on keyword filters alone.
- the 24-hour deadline would not cover harassment: Maguire supports Lozier’s deadline and says a slow response is never neutral, so he would not exclude harassment.
- harassment reports would wait for a court order: Maguire says a slow response is never neutral, so waiting for a court order goes against his view.
Correct Answer: that it could reach too far into lawful speech
Passage Reference: I believe the current draft reaches too far
Why this is correct: The columnist supports a duty for illegal content but says the draft reaches too far. In the columnist’s view, the law should not order platforms to delete lawful speech.
Tips: For a concern question, read the first sentence of the column. Then find the sentence near the end that starts “What the law should not do”.
Why the other options are wrong:
- that it would act too slowly on illegal posts: The columnist accepts Lozier’s deadline for illegal content. The worry is about lawful speech, not slowness.
- that newspapers would lose readers to platforms: Losing readers is never mentioned. Campeau’s point about her paper is about libel law.
- that its fines would be too small to matter: The column mentions fines only as Chiang’s worry that penalties could land before an appeal is heard, not as being too small.
Correct Answer: records that a regulator can inspect
Passage Reference: with a 24-hour deadline to act and records that a regulator can inspect
Why this is correct: Lozier, the safety director, wants a 24-hour deadline to act and records that a regulator can inspect.
Tips: The comment calls her “the safety director”, so find Lozier’s first sentence. Read to the end of it, past the deadline.
Why the other options are wrong:
- a 24-hour deadline for legal posts: Lozier’s 24-hour deadline is for content that is already illegal, not for legal posts.
- protection for every platform, whatever it does: Lozier would protect only platforms that honestly carry out the duty, not every platform.
- fines issued before any appeal: Fines before appeals are what Chiang fears. Lozier never proposes them.
Correct Answer: warning labels and a smaller audience
Passage Reference: She wants warning labels and reduced reach for accounts that repeat them
Why this is correct: Campeau, the publisher, wants warning labels and reduced reach for accounts that repeat known falsehoods.
Tips: The comment calls her “the publisher”, so find Campeau’s lines in the third paragraph. Read the sentence that ends with “not the deletion of every disputed claim”.
Why the other options are wrong:
- permanent bans from every platform: Campeau never asks for bans. She wants labels and reduced reach.
- fines paid directly to newspapers: Campeau compares her paper with platforms, but she never asks for fines to be paid to newspapers.
- deletion of each disputed post: Campeau wants labels and reduced reach, “not the deletion of every disputed claim.”
Correct Answer: her paper answers to libel law while platforms do not
Passage Reference: her paper already answers to libel law while platforms profit from reach without similar responsibility
Why this is correct: Campeau points out that her paper already answers to libel law while platforms profit from reach without similar responsibility.
Tips: The comment says her remark surprised the reader, so look at the last sentence of Campeau’s lines. Put her point in your own words.
Why the other options are wrong:
- platforms should pay newspapers for news: Campeau never asks platforms to pay for news. Her comparison is about legal responsibility.
- most falsehoods start in printed newspapers: Campeau never says falsehoods start in newspapers. She says they are pushed to millions online.
- election posts should be banned for a month: Campeau wants labels and reduced reach during elections, not a ban on posts.
Correct Answer: slow responses hurt women and minority users first
Passage Reference: online abuse usually lands on women and on minority users before anyone else, so a slow response is never neutral
Why this is correct: Maguire, the advocate, says online abuse usually lands on women and on minority users before anyone else. So a slow response is never neutral.
Tips: The comment calls him “the advocate”, so find Maguire’s opening sentence. Notice the word “so” and what comes before it.
Why the other options are wrong:
- platforms remove too much satire: The worry about satire comes from Chiang, not from the online-safety advocate.
- anonymous accounts cause most of the abuse: Maguire never blames anonymous accounts. He talks about who the abuse hits first.
- most harassment comes from abroad: Maguire never says where harassment comes from. He says who it hits first.
Correct Answer: the city’s parking rules
Passage Reference: a joke I posted about our city’s parking rules was removed as “hateful content” and restored nine days later
Why this is correct: In the first paragraph, the columnist’s joke about the city’s parking rules was removed as “hateful content” and restored nine days later.
Tips: The comment talks about “your own story”, so go back to the writer’s memory in the first paragraph. Read what the removed joke was about.
Why the other options are wrong:
- a local hockey game: No hockey game is mentioned. The joke was about parking rules.
- the price of city buses: Bus prices are never mentioned. The columnist joked about parking rules.
- a new bike lane downtown: No bike lane appears in the column. The removed joke was about parking rules.
