Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Business

Google says Biden admin ‘pressed’ it to censor some COVID-19 content

Published

2 minute read

From The Center Square

By 

As proof that Youtube “takes seriously the importance of protecting free expression,” Alphabet promised to allow any creators that it permanently deplatformed due to content about election integrity or COVID-19 to rejoin.

Senior Biden administration officials pressured Google to remove COVID-19-related content that did not violate YouTube’s policies but the administration considered alarming, new information reveals.

Following a subpoena issued by the House Judiciary Committee’s, Alphabet Inc. – the company which owns Google, Youtube, and other platforms – said that former President Joe Biden and his officials “created a political atmosphere that sought to influence the actions of platforms based on their concerns regarding misinformation.”

The administration, according to Alphabet, conducted “repeated and sustained outreach” and “pressed” the company to remove “user-generated content related to the COVID-19 pandemic that did not violate its policies.”

“While the reliance on health authorities in this context was well-intentioned, [Alphabet] recognizes it should never come at the expense of public debate on these important issues,” Alphabet’s Tuesday letter said.

As proof that Youtube “takes seriously the importance of protecting free expression,” Alphabet promised to allow any creators that it permanently deplatformed due to content about election integrity or COVID-19 to rejoin.

The company also reaffirmed that Youtube will not use third-party fact checkers, unlike other companies operating social media platforms like Meta which have done so in the past.

Meta announced in January that it would end its fact-checking program and censorship policies after investigations revealed the company had acquiesced to pressure from the Biden administration to adopt those measures.

Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, called Alphabet’s response “another victory in the fight against censorship.”

“We will continue to hold Big Tech accountable,” Jordan added in social media posts Tuesday. “All the above are MASSIVE wins for the American people, the First Amendment, and freedom. We won’t stop fighting to protect free speech.”

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author

Business

Watchdog Calls Out Carney’s Lack of Ethics Code

Published on

The Opposition with Dan Knight

Dan Knight's avatar Dan Knight

Democracy Watch Demands PM Re-Enact Full Ministerial Code and End Conflicts by Selling Investments as House Committee Probes Loophole-Ridden Ethics Law

The House of Commons Ethics Committee is finally cracking open the federal Conflict of Interest Act. It’s the first real review in years. And it’s overdue. Today, Democracy Watch is calling on Prime Minister Mark Carney to do something simple and obvious: re-issue the Prime Minister’s code for ministers and staff—publicly, in full—and work with every party to shut the gaping loopholes that have turned Canada’s ethics rules into a suggestion box.

The only publicly posted rulebook is still the 2015 “Open and Accountable Government” guide. It wasn’t signed by Mark Carney. It was signed by Justin Trudeau. Before that, Stephen Harper had his own “Accountable Government” code in 2007, which he strengthened in 2011. Paul Martin re-issued the code in 2004 as “Responsible Government,” and Jean Chrétien was the first to bring it in back in 2002. Every Prime Minister for more than two decades has put their name to a code—except Carney.

That’s a problem. Canadians deserve crystal-clear, enforceable standards: honesty, no apparent conflicts, decisions based on merit, real guardrails on political activity, fundraising, and dealings with lobbyists—and ministerial staff held to the same line. Put the rules in the PM’s own name or admit you plan to weaken them.

“Failing to re-enact the code—or watering it down—would gut already weak rules and further trash public trust,” said Duff Conacher, PhD (Law), Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Canadians want standards with teeth, not press releases dressed up as ethics.”

Here’s what’s driving the urgency. The Conflict of Interest Act still lets the Prime Minister park massive holdings behind instruments branded as “blind trusts” or “ethics screens.” In practice, those devices often conceal participation; they don’t prevent it. That’s not oversight. That’s camouflage. Democracy Watch’s position is blunt: if you want to end the conflicts, sell the assets. Full divestment, including buyouts of stock options by Brookfield and any other connected companies, as past inquiries recommended.

“Prime Minister Carney’s so-called blind trust is not blind, and his ethics screen is an opaque mechanism that invites doubt about who benefits when the government acts,” Conacher said. “The fix is obvious: sell the investments. Anything less keeps Canadians in the dark.”

Parliament now has a choice. Use this committee review to close loopholes around blind trusts and ethics screens. Spell out what “improperly furthering private interests” really means. Put real independence, transparency, and penalties into law. And stop the double standard: cabinet and staff should face rules at least as tough as those on public servants and senators.

Democracy Watch is also urging broader reforms: clean up lobbying secrecy, slash the federal donation limit to cut off cash-for-access politics, protect whistleblowers who tell the truth, fix the federal access-to-information black box, and take the appointment of watchdogs out of the hands of the very politicians they’re supposed to police—no re-appointments, no cozy incentives.

And let’s be clear: this isn’t just Democracy Watch griping. It has credible grounding in the history of Canadian ethics law. The 1984 Starr–Sharp Task Force laid out a blueprint for a comprehensive ministerial code. Justice Parker’s 1987 commission went further, flatly recommending an end to the shell game of so-called blind trusts and, in cases of serious conflicts, requiring divestment. Parliament’s own research notes confirm it: the idea that you can “screen” away conflicts was discredited almost forty years ago. The fix was spelled out back then.

And yet here we are, in 2025, with a Prime Minister sitting on massive investments, hiding behind loopholes, and ducking responsibility to even sign his own code of conduct. Canadians see it. They know the difference between rules with teeth and ethics theatre.

Enough posturing. Enough smoke and mirrors. Re-enact the full PM Code today. Tighten the Act tomorrow. And end the Prime Minister’s conflicts by selling the assets outright. That’s how you rebuild trust, by earning it, by setting an example, and by standing on principle.

But let’s be honest: he won’t do it. He won’t because these Liberals are swamp creatures to their core. They talk transparency while cashing in behind the curtain. They preach accountability while hiding their own dealings. Canadians know it, and they’re sick of it.

Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

Business

Taxpayers: Stop wasting money and scrap the gun ban

Published on

By Gage Haubrich 

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is calling on the federal government to scrap its failing gun ban and confiscation program after announcing a pilot project to confiscate firearms from individual Canadians.

“Law enforcement experts have stated the gun ban and confiscation won’t make Canadians safer,” said Gage Haubrich, CTF Prairie Director. “Confiscating guns from licenced gun owners won’t keep illegal guns out of the hands of criminals.

“Taxpayers can’t afford to spend another dollar on what is amounting to be an absurdly expensive piece of government performance art.”

The federal government announced that it will starting a pilot project to confiscate firearms from individuals in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia.

The federal government banned more than 2,500 models of firearms since 2020. Before they were banned, all those firearms were used for hunting or sports shooting by Canadians who passed safety tests and background checks.

The police and other experts have publicly stated this scheme won’t make Canadians safer.

“It won’t impact crime rates,” said Doug King, a professor of justice studies at Mount Royal University.

The National Police Federation, the union representing the RCMP, says Ottawa’s program “diverts extremely important personnel, resources, and funding away from addressing the more immediate and growing threat of criminal use of illegal firearms.”

“We know that the gun buyback program is going to have, essentially, zero impact on the crime in Toronto,” said Clayton Campbell, the president of the Toronto Police Association.

Since the guns were initially banned in 2020, meaning it’s illegal to use them, violent firearm crimes in Canada have increased.

The government said the confiscation would cost taxpayers $200 million in 2019. In reality, the cost of providing compensation for the confiscated guns could be up to $756 million, not including administration costs, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Other experts have put the total cost at more than $6 billion.

The government has a history of ballooning costs for these programs. The government initially promised the long-gun registry would cost taxpayers only $2 million. The final tab was more than $2 billion.

“Cops, academics, licenced gun owners and everyday taxpayers know that this program won’t do anything to make Canadians safer,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director “The federal government needs to listen to the police and scrap this program before another penny of taxpayers’ money is wasted.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X