SUNDRE – The Town of Sundre's council has approved an update to the municipality’s social media policy with one councillor opposed following a difference of opinions concerning a definition about whether misinformation is spread deliberately.
In a preamble presented to council during the a recent regular meeting, Linda Nelson, the town's chief administrative officer, said a few “very small changes” to the document had been proposed by the bylaw policy review committee.
Among the recommendations outlined by the committee was the inclusion of a new definition for misinformation under Section 3.
The proposed new definition under Section 3.5 stated that “Misinformation is the sharing of inaccurate and misleading information in an unintentional way and creates the general impression that the information is correct, and has the potential to create doubt and confusion, reduce confidence in the town, and reduce trust and cooperation between citizens. This includes disseminating only partial or one-sided information.”
Additionally, the existing definition of “social media user” under Section 3.9 as meaning anyone who posts comments or questions on the social media channels populated by the municipality, was amended to include an additional reference of “or on other social media sites that reference town business.”
The document’s existing policy statement was only slightly reworded and in part reads that the municipality “values and encourages communication with its residents and businesses and supports the use of town-hosted social media venues as an additional communication tool for sharing information, encouraging dialogue with its citizens, and facilitating engagement by and with the community.”
As well, the previously existing policy already stated under Section 7.5 for general provisions that while the municipality endeavours to enable “free and unfettered conversation,” certain comments considered offensive to an individual or organization that are rude or abusive in tone as determined by the town will not be tolerated, with the municipality reserving the right to restrict or remove any content deemed in violation of the policy or any applicable law.
Those reasons include but are not limited to comments that:
• are not topically related to a particular post;
• are slanderous or defamatory remarks, obscene language or sexual content; and,
• content that promotes, fosters or perpetuates discrimination on the basis of race, creed, colour, age, religion, gender, martial status, status with regard to public assistance, national origin, physical or mental disability or sexual orientation.
The term “misinformation” was also added to that list as a result of the committee’s review.
And under Section 7.9, the committee recommended removing a reference of “deliberately” with regards to the public having a right to know when information is incorrect or is deliberately posted that misrepresents or misleads the public on any social media site.
Coun. Chris Vardas moved to approve the amended policy as presented.
While Coun. Owen Petersen for the most part supported the updated policy, the councillor suggested making one final amendment under the Section 3.5 definition of misinformation.
“I feel I’m a very generous person, but it is a little too generous to use the word ‘unintentional’ for all misinformation,” said Petersen.
“I believe that we should just scratch out the word unintentional. So it should read, ‘misinformation is the sharing of inaccurate and misleading (information) in a way to create general impressions that the information is correct,’” he said.
Speaking against Petersen’s proposed amendment, Coun. Jaime Marr, who sits on the review committee, said there had been lots of discussion on that matter.
“We want to give the community the benefit of the doubt. It’s been a really rough few years and a lot of people are sour to words,” said Marr, adding the policy can be changed at any time but that she for now would rather keep the reference of “unintentional.”
“I’d like to leave it in, because I would like to assume that any (mis)information that shared is a misunderstanding and to give the benefit of the doubt to the community,” she said.
“And after seeing repeated misunderstandings from particular individuals, we can then make some changes,” she said. “But I’d like to err on side of caution and just say that everyone is just misinformed and they don’t mean to do it.”
Petersen further elaborated his position.
“I don’t want to talk about people’s intentions on why they post; misinformation is misinformation, I don’t care why they do it,” he said. “Sometimes it’s for good reasons, ignorant reasons, bad reasons. Doesn’t matter. I just think it’s unnecessary to have (unintentional) in this definition.”
Offering additional context, Marr said the review committee had also discussed whether to use the term disinformation or misinformation.
“And we opted to remove disinformation. We all agreed that ‘disinformation’ was a word that really the public is so sensitive to,” she said.
“I really feel strongly that we need to allow our community the freedom to voice their opinion and to share information that they sometimes believe is factual,” she continued.
“It will provide us an opportunity, on our town-approved social media sites, to correct them and to educate the community. I think it’s important to correct and inform first before assuming negative,” she concluded, urging her colleagues to pass the policy as presented by the review committee and see how it goes before making further changes.
Petersen’s amendment passed with Marr and mayor Richard Warnock opposed. Council then approved the updated policy with only Marr against.
