涩里番鈥檚听听is a听month听dedicated to celebrating all aspects of the French language, whether it be the culture it embodies, the city that thrives on it, or the people around听the world who speak it every day.听As part of听贵谤补苍肠辞蹿锚迟别听2026, francophone MPPs Timoth茅e de Lestrange and Th茅o Sainte-Marie reflect on their key takeaways from the lecture听鈥淭he Modern Media Ecosystem: Risks, Realities, and Responsibilities鈥� with speakers Farnell Morisset and Aengus Bridgman.听[]
Farnell听Morisset听is a听relatively new听entrant to the social media landscape, joining the swelling ranks of 鈥渋nfluencers鈥澨齞iving听into politics and current events for content. Yet in the听tightly听knit听Canadian social media landscape, he is one of Qu茅bec鈥檚 biggest voices. A graduate of both 涩里番 and the London School of Economics, and a lawyer by training, Farnell spent some years in the United States before recently returning to Canada. By his own admission, it is not a lucrative career path,听nor a particularly welcoming one. Unsurprisingly, the internet has shown itself to be an ambivalent audience, with thoughtful engagement with his content balanced by occasional irrational anger and vitriol. He mostly ignores the latter.听听
Aengus Bridgman is the Director of the Media Ecosystem Observatory,听within听the Max Bell School of Public Policy. As a leading academic voice on AI, Bridgman brought a wealth of knowledge about the technical implications of the issues at hand, complementing Mr.听Morisset's听social lens.
With the discussion carried out entirely in French, the two sat down to explore the intersection of social media, privacy, artificial intelligence, and politics in modern life. Starting with the issue of misinformation and disinformation in the digital landscape, Bridgman and听Morisset听quickly delved into the comparative differences between American and Canadian influencer landscapes and the personal risks that come with public life. Nevertheless,听Morisset听applies a positive spin to it all: he fashions his听colleagues and himself as a 鈥淔ifth Power,鈥� capable, in some ways, of simultaneously keeping politicians and traditional media to account.听听
Yet the broader societal risks of the proliferation of media on the internet remain present. While听Morisset听and his contemporaries offer a new method of听maintaining听an informed populace, especially for younger people, it comes at a price. Some actors of considerable following, whom the听panelists听left unnamed, have intentionally spread incorrect or highly biased narratives, potentially even under the direction of foreign entities. The 鈥淔ifth Power,鈥� they then remarked, will need its own counterbalance, as the court of public opinion has only proved minimally effective. This also bleeds into the dangers of unrestricted youth access, which听Morisset听and Bridgman slightly diverged on, alongside an apprehensive attending public. While some believed in raising barriers to access for children under 16,听Morisset听remained听ever the optimist, affirming that responsible instruction of internet use is a far more effective tool than simple blanket bans.听听
The discussion had all in attendance tightly captivated and eager to dig further into the subject matter. As generous in sharing their time as they were in sharing their ideas, the two lit up this section of the听Francofete听with a rigorous, intellectual exchange.听听
Walking out of the discussion, one question听lingered:听is social media a fifth democratic power?听
Morisset听argued that听because of their investigative ability, traditional media outlets are often viewed as a fourth power keeping the three others (executive: governments, legislative: parliaments, judicial: courts) in check. Yet we must recognize that the media outlets do not really keep each other in check. It is rare for a newspaper to directly criticize another, or to question the work of its peers. Indeed, the media field is an impermeable world. When we look at a television set, the commentators are听almost all听socially homogeneous.听
Social media enabled a democratization of public speech, with emerging figures 鈥渓ike us鈥� such as Farnell听Morisset,听and听the possibility for less-followed users to comment, react, share, and even go viral. This diversity among those who 鈥渉ave the floor,鈥� with the ability to call out our political decision-makers and to 鈥渄ebunk鈥� traditional media, would make social media a fifth branch of power. Finally, internet users keep each other in check and criticize themselves, which is rare in traditional media.听
We听remain听cautious听about听this reflection. We agree that social media could be听considered听a fifth power. But it is not because they have the听potential听to make our society more democratic; more so that that听is what is currently happening.听
While Farnell spoke about the issue at length in听different ways, we wish to delve听somewhat deeper听here. As such, the following remarks serve only听to听expand the discussion.听
Of the 21 million听Instagram听users in Canada, only a small handful are considered 鈥渋nfluencers鈥�. These people are certainly a bit more socially homogeneous than in the political and media world, but 鈥渙pinion leaders鈥�,听meaning people influencing their surroundings in perceiving political news, have always existed, and in every social circle.听
It is true that social media allowed people from our everyday life to 鈥渕ake it鈥�,听in fact, redistributing public speech. But thinking that this distribution is equitable and democratic would be to forget that it has been done at the discretion of algorithms no one knows how they work, in the hands of private companies mainly from the United-States which have as a stated political goal to influence the political opinions of their users 鈥� as on听X听controlled by the far-right multi-billionaire Elon Musk 鈥� and which have all sworn allegiance to Donald Trump and his fascist ideas after he took office in 2025.听
Furthermore, the content of this public speech is also controlled. If the moderation of these platforms is supposed to prevent the propagation of disinformation, heinous, or dangerous content, then only听TikTok听moderates it听somewhat effectively. In 2026, a few minutes of scrolling is enough for a vulnerable person to be shown suicidal content. On the other听side, words that are indispensable to听the public听debate are being censored. For instance, content denouncing gender-based violence is taken down at the mention of the word 鈥渞ape鈥�,听and History videos testifying to the barbarism of fascism cannot听contain听the word 鈥淣azism鈥�. Moreover, social听networks鈥� algorithms work in 鈥渟ilos鈥� or in 鈥渂ubbles鈥�,听and users can听rapidly end up in downward听masculinistic听or conspiracy spirals.听
The way public speech is distributed, the content of this speech, and the breadth and composition of the public receiving this speech 鈥� all of this is fundamentally undemocratic on social media. Yet, we are convinced of their democratic potential. But for them to become the reflection of the public arena, to enable citizens to debate and democracy to grow, it is听absolutely indispensable听to revise the foundation of their functioning.听
For now, social media听does not pursue a democratic or social goal, and their algorithms are sorely lacking in transparency. It now belongs to public decision-makers to seize this policy issue and to ensure that democracy is integrated within the design of social networks and their algorithms.听听
