Regulating social media is climate policy

Most of us in the climate movement spend our time focused on pipelines, climate injustice, broken climate promises, and the need to build renewables. And we should. But there is another front in this fight that is often ignored, to the detriment of both people and the planet. It is time we started talking about social media platforms and the more recent amplification of their harms through artificial intelligence.

I argue that progressive movements, and specifically climate activists, must incorporate into our policy agendas the regulation of social media. If we don’t assert democratic control over these platforms, they—and the far-right movements of this world who thrive on them—will continue to expand their influence over us.

We all know we have a misinformation problem. Take the 2023 wildfires in Canada. Depending on which online echo chamber you entered, they were supposedly caused by arson, “green terrorists,” pyrotechnic drones, directed-energy weapons, or even government helicopters. Conspiracy theories go further, claiming governments lie about climate change to prepare “climate lockdowns.”

Disinformation starts at the top. Last September at the United Nations General Assembly, Donald Trump declared:

This ‘climate change,’ it’s the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world, in my opinion. All of these predictions… were made by stupid people that have cost their countries fortunes… If you don’t get away from this green scam, your country is going to fail.

Trump knew his audience wasn’t the appalled diplomats politely clapping in New York but rather his online base. Once amplified through social media, his words reverberated endlessly until they showed up in our workplaces, homes, and even among young people who proudly say they’ve “done their own research.” Translation: they’re consuming algorithm-driven disinformation posing as truth.

Here’s the reality: disinformation is not a glitch of social media, it’s the business model. Rage, fear, and sensationalism drive clicks. Clicks equal profit. The platforms don’t just host content; they promote what keeps people angry and addicted.

I understand why so many on the left hesitate to take on this issue—because we value freedom of speech, and any push for regulation feels like a slippery slope toward censorship. But this is a misunderstanding. Freedom of speech is not the same as freedom to be amplified. People should be able to say what they want within the law. But no company has a duty to turn conspiracy theories into viral megaphones. That amplification is a choice baked into algorithms designed for profit.

If there’s one idea to remember, it’s this: the issue isn’t just bad content. The main issue is the industry’s business model that ties profit to disinformation and division.

For three decades, social media giants have privatized our public sphere with almost no oversight. Because they don’t sell a product in the traditional sense (instead of money, we “pay” with our personal data), they’ve argued they shouldn’t be regulated. That is absurd. We regulate pharmaceuticals so medicines don’t poison us. We regulate cars so they’re safe to drive. Why should tech platforms, some of the most powerful corporations on Earth, get a free pass to deliver products that addict children, corrode democracy, and undermine climate action?

It is no coincidence that roughly one-third of Americans still attribute global warming primarily to natural causes rather than human activity, despite the overwhelming scientific consensus to the contrary. That figure reflects decades of disinformation amplified by largely unregulated social media platforms. Now, AI is helping flood those platforms with limitless amounts of fabricated text, images, audio, and video, further eroding trust in evidence and expertise. This is part of what some have labelled the ‘enshittification’ of the internet: the gradual shift from prioritizing users and the quality of information to maximizing engagement, advertising revenue, and profit.

We need to get on with real regulation. That means, for example, algorithmic transparency—users should know why certain content is being pushed to them. It means independent oversight—regulators and expert panels must audit how platforms operate and assess their impacts on public discourse. It also requires limits on profit-from-rage—business models that monetize disinformation and outrage must face the same scrutiny we apply to Big Oil or Big Pharma.

Canada has taken some tentative steps. Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act introduced in 2024, died on the order paper when Parliament was prorogued in January 2025. The federal government has continued to signal its intention to pursue online safety legislation, and in 2026 reconvened its expert advisory group on online harms, but no successor to Bill C-63 has yet been enacted. More importantly, the debate remains focused on harmful content rather than on the algorithms and business models that amplify misinformation and profit from outrage.

If anything, the federal government’s attention appears to be moving further away from platform accountability. A recent example is Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act, legislation focused on access to digital communications, encryption, and law enforcement powers. Rather than addressing the algorithms, business models, and amplification mechanisms that drive misinformation and polarization, the criticism has focused on issues of cybersecurity and surveillance. These are important issues in their own right, but they do little to address the underlying dynamics through which social media platforms profit from outrage, disinformation, and social division. As a result, the core question of how to regulate the platforms themselves remains largely unaddressed.

The creation of a dedicated AI ministry raised hopes for stronger governance of emerging technologies. Yet Minister Evan Solomon’s repeated emphasis on economic opportunity, adoption, and competitiveness—and his warning against “over-indexing” on regulation—suggest that the government’s priority remains accelerating AI growth rather than addressing the broader social harms these technologies may create. Prime Minister Mark Carney’s unwillingness to challenge US-based Big Tech became clear early on with his abrupt announcement rescinding the digital services tax, a levy on their Canadian revenues, citing the stalled trade negotiations with the United States.

The Carney government’s newly released national AI strategy, AI for All, places heavy emphasis on economic growth, productivity, competitiveness, and the development of a sovereign Canadian AI sector. The strategy aims to increase AI adoption across the economy, support Canadian AI firms, and invest in computing infrastructure and data centres. To its credit, it also includes commitments on privacy, online safety, AI literacy, cybersecurity, and support for the Canadian AI Safety Institute. However, the overall thrust of the strategy is unmistakably growth-oriented: AI is presented primarily as an economic opportunity to be accelerated rather than as a technology whose societal risks require robust regulation. While references to trust, safety, and democratic safeguards are present, the concrete measures on governance and accountability remain far less developed than the strategy’s plans for adoption and commercialization.

The lesson is clear: if we want to build public support for serious climate action, we need a healthy information ecosystem. Right now, that ecosystem is poisoned. We cannot advance climate solutions if a large fraction of the public believes that climate science is fake, exaggerated, or part of a conspiracy. Much of this problem is not simply a matter of false information circulating online, but of powerful economic interests shaping public narratives. Fossil fuel companies and affiliated organizations have spent decades funding campaigns that cast doubt on climate science, promote misleading claims about the pace and scale of the energy transition, and amplify messages that protect existing business models. The challenge, therefore, is one of transparency, accountability, and regulation: ensuring that the sources of funding behind climate-related messaging are visible to the public, and that digital platforms are not structured in ways that reward well-financed disinformation campaigns over evidence-based debate. We should not expect governments alone to address this challenge. The regulation of social media and AI must become part of the policy agenda of progressive movements and climate activists themselves.

To my fellow activists: if we care about making inroads in the climate fight, we must confront Big Tech too. Climate action is about systemic change, and that includes the systems that shape how people understand reality itself. Until progressive movements place the regulation of social media and AI alongside climate, economic, and social justice policies, we will continue fighting with one hand tied behind our backs.

Dr. Ricardo Grinspun is a retired professor of economics and senior scholar at York University and a member of Seniors for Climate Action Now (SCAN).