From LifeSiteNews

By Calvin Freiburger

Facebook parent company Meta will be working with conservative activist Robby Starbuck to keep political bias out of its artificial intelligence (AI) project in perhaps the most significant sign yet that Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg really does want to change the tech giant’s left-wing ways for good.

The Hill reported that Starbuck, best known for his work bringing public attention to corporations’ “woke” practices and marshalling public pressure on them to change, and Meta have reached a settlement in the former’s defamation suit against the latter over Meta AI falsely identifying Starbuck as a participant in the January 6, 2021 riots at the U.S. Capitol.

The details of the settlement are not public beyond a joint statement announcing that “Meta and Robby Starbuck will work collaboratively in the coming months to continue to find ways to address issues of ideological and political bias and minimize the risk that the model returns hallucinations in response to user queries.”

Starbuck indicated he was pleased that his lawsuit achieved its loftiest goal: “fix this for everybody so this doesn’t become a massive, you know, really terrible story in the future where AI affects elections in ways that no one is comfortable with.”

The partnership appears to indicate a seismic shift at Meta, whose Facebook social network was for years one of the biggest offenders in left-wing bias and censorship in the tech world.

Last year, Zuckerberg began to acknowledge and disavow the social network’s compliance with Biden administration requests to censor content challenging establishment COVID-19 narratives, and announced in January 2025 that parent company Meta would be taking steps to “dramatically reduce the amount of censorship on our platforms.” The company also abandoned a number of diversity, equity & inclusion (DEI) policies, including the placement of female hygiene products in male restrooms.

In April, Meta laid out its goal to “remove bias” from its Llama 4 artificial intelligence language model, so that it “answers questions, can respond to a variety of different viewpoints without passing judgment, and doesn’t favor some views over others.” Later that month, the Meta Oversight Board ruled that two social media posts that “misgendered” gender-dysphoric individuals should remain standing as they did not violate the platform’s Hate Speech policy.

In March, Facebook announced community notes, inspired by an X (formerly Twitter) feature by the same name, which would “draw on a broader range of voices that exist on our platform to decide which content would benefit from additional information,” as an alternative to the platform’s previous “fact-checking” program, which was heavily criticized for relying on third-party groups that often had left-wing biases. 

Last month, the feature demonstrated its effectiveness and difference from the old days by correcting a false claim by former leading Democrat Hillary Clinton that Georgia pro-life laws were responsible for a woman’s death by sepsis in 2022 after taking abortion pills and that the attending hospital failed to proceed with a potentially life-saving procedure even though the state abortion ban would have allowed it.

This article supplied by Troy Media.

 By Perry Kinkaide

China is an example of AI surveillance in action. Canada should take that as a warning, not a blueprint

China shows what happens when artificial intelligence is weaponized by the state.

Its Social Credit System, a nationwide framework to rate the “trustworthiness” of citizens and businesses, decides whether people can get a loan, buy a home, travel abroad or even move freely inside the country by merging financial records, online activity, travel history and facial recognition data into one algorithmic profile.

Sold as a way to curb fraud and tax evasion, it quickly became a tool to track political loyalty and personal behaviour the state doesn’t like. Step out of line, and the system punishes you.

Canadians should treat China’s misuse of AI as a warning. AI is advancing so fast that, without strict limits, we could slide into a similar dystopian future—one where governments promise efficiency and safety but use technology to tighten control over everyday life.

It wouldn’t take much for such a system to take root here. The data, the technology and the surveillance tools already exist. All that’s missing is the
decision to connect them.

Canadian governments have already shown they are willing to impose sweeping controls and restrict freedoms when faced with dissent or crisis. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Liberal government invoked the Emergencies Act—a law that grants Ottawa extraordinary temporary powers, including the ability to freeze bank accounts and bypass normal parliamentary debate—to limit movement in response to protests. Across Canada, governments closed businesses, banned gatherings, restricted travel within and outside the country, and introduced vaccine passport systems that
restricted access to certain public spaces.

Now imagine those same powers supercharged by AI—able to track, predict and act in real time, with decisions automated and enforcement instant. What used to be broad and temporary restrictions could become precise, ongoing controls that are almost impossible to resist.

A Canadian version of China’s Social Credit System could link tax filings, health records, driver’s licences, transit passes, social media accounts and other personal data. When once-separate databases are linked, previously separate pieces of information combine into a detailed profile, making it far easier to monitor, predict and restrict a person’s actions. With that much linked information, governments wouldn’t just know what you’ve done—they could control what you’re allowed to do next. That’s not a distant, sci-fi scenario.

This is why regulation matters—but Canada’s current plan falls short. The proposed Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA), part of Bill C-27, is meant to be Canada’s first law governing artificial intelligence systems that could have major impacts on people’s lives. These so-called “high-impact” systems include AI used in areas like health care, hiring, law enforcement, credit scoring and critical infrastructure—technologies where errors, bias or abuse could have serious consequences.

On paper, AIDA would regulate these systems, require risk assessments and keep humans in the loop for key decisions. But with its narrow scope, weak enforcement powers and a rollout that could take years before its rules are fully in force, it risks becoming a safety net with a hole in the middle, in effect more about managing political optics than preventing abuse.

AI surveillance is no longer a future threat—it’s already here. It combines cameras, sensors and massive databases to track people in real time, often without their knowledge or consent. It can predict behaviour, automate decisions and enforce rules instantly. Mustafa Suleyman, in The Coming Wave, warns that AI must be contained before it becomes uncontrollable. Shoshana Zuboff, in The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, reaches the same conclusion: AI is tailor-made for mass monitoring, and once embedded, these systems are almost impossible to dismantle.

Some insist that slowing AI’s development would be pointless, that other nations and corporations would race ahead. But that argument is dangerously naive. History shows that once governments and corporations gain powerful surveillance tools, they don’t give them up—they expand their reach, change their purpose and tighten their grip.

China’s example proves the point. The Social Credit System was never just about unpaid debts or tax evasion. Its real purpose has always been to track people and control their behaviour. Today, it measures political loyalty as much as financial reliability, punishing citizens for anything from joining a protest to criticizing the government online. Jobs, housing, education and even the right to travel can be revoked with a few keystrokes. Once a government is allowed to define “public good” and enforce it algorithmically, freedom becomes a privilege—granted or taken away at will.

Yes, AI-driven surveillance can catch criminals, detect threats and manage crises. But those benefits come at a cost. Once such a system is in place, it rarely returns to its original purpose. It finds new uses, and it becomes permanent.

The choice for Canadians is clear: demand enforceable laws, transparent oversight and real accountability now—before it’s too late.

Dr. Perry Kinkaide is a visionary leader and change agent. Since retiring in 2001, he has served as an advisor and director for various organizations and founded the Alberta Council of Technologies Society in 2005. Previously, he held leadership roles at KPMG Consulting and the Alberta Government. He holds a BA from Colgate University and an MSc and PhD in Brain Research from the University of Alberta.

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country