Connect with us

Internet

Gov’t memo admits Canadians are shifting to independent news due to distrust of media, not Russian ‘bots’

Published

11 months ago

5 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

A memo from Canada’s Department of Foreign Affairs admits that the rise of ‘alternative’ news sources is not due to Russian interference, as some members of the Trudeau Cabinet have claimed, but likely reflects ‘decrease in trust among traditional outlets.’

The explosive growth of Canadians shifting to alternative non-legacy media to obtain their news is not due to Russian “bots,” as some in the government and left-wing media claim, but reflects people’s distrust of entrenched media outlets, at least one government agency admitted.

A memo titled Foreign Interference And Right Wing Politics: The Canadian Context from Canada’s Department of Foreign Affairs said that the growth of so-called “alternative and far right ‘news sources’” is not due to Russian bots but is likely due to Canadians’ suspicion of “traditional outlets.”

Analysts put to rest claims made by some far-left media outlets that bots are somehow to blame for the rise of independent news media sites in Canada popular today, which include the Post Millennial, Rebel News, True North, LifeSiteNews, as well as a host of others.

According to foreign interference monitors at the Rapid Response Mechanism office, or RRM Canada, run by the department, “they tried and failed to corroborate allegations that conservative media in Canada were stoked by offshore agents,” according to Blacklock’s Reporter.

“RRM Canada observed no indication of false amplification and assesses the increased popularity of these sources is very likely both organic and domestic in nature,” read the memo.

The memo stated that the while the nature of the content is “domestic, the move away from traditional news sources may indicate a decrease in trust among traditional outlets among right leaning Canadians.”

“No such increased popularity has been observed among alternative or far left media outlets,” noted the memo.

The memo noted that sites such as the Rebel News Network had a larger social media footprint than established outlets such as the National Post or the Globe & Mail.

When looking to find claims that foreign agents were behind the rise of alternative media, the RRM analysts found no evidence that this is the case.

“While these stories are not necessarily inaccurate, Rapid Response Mechanism Canada notes foreign interference and covert influence campaigns exploit narratives from across the political spectrum.”

The memo of note was filed with counsel for Canada’s ongoing Commission on Foreign Interference.

Overall, the memo contradicted claims made by the cabinet of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau that Russian agents were the ones increasing messaging critical of the government.

In 2020, Canada’s then-Public Safety Minister and now-Finance Minister Dominic LeBlanc quipped to reporters that “Trolls and bots are dispatched to stoke anxiety and in some cases inflame debate around sensitive issues,” saying, “Their main goal is chaos.”

“We have seen how hostile state and non-state actors use information technologies to manufacture reality,” he claimed, adding, “Fake news not only masquerades as the truth, it masquerades as legitimate political debate.”

Canadian figures who are critical of the Trudeau government have been accused of being bankrolled by Russia. As reported by LifeSiteNews, Dr. Jordan Peterson recently demanded an apology from Trudeau after the Canadian prime minister accused him of being funded by Russian state media.

As reported by LifeSiteNews, Trudeau claimed U.S. media personality Tucker Carlson and Peterson are being funded by the state media outlet Russia Today. He also blamed Russia for “amplifying the chaos” surrounding the 2022 Freedom Convoy protests.

Trudeau made the claim last Wednesday under oath during testimony at the Foreign Interference Commission after he was asked about Russia’s alleged role in the Freedom Convoy.

The Foreign Interference Commission was convened to “examine and assess the interference by China, Russia, and other foreign states or non-state actors, including any potential impacts, to confirm the integrity of, and any impacts on, the 43rd and 44th general elections (2019 and 2021 elections) at the national and electoral district levels.”

Related Topics:

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
Health / 7 hours ago

RFK Jr’s argument for studying efficacy of various vaccines

Censorship Industrial Complex / 8 hours ago

Pro-freedom group warns Liberal bill could secretly cut off Canadians’ internet access

Addictions / 8 hours ago

The War on Commonsense Nicotine Regulation

Censorship Industrial Complex

Senate Grills Meta and Google Over Biden Administration’s Role in COVID-Era Content Censorship

Published on November 2, 2025

By

logo

By Cindy Harper

Lawmakers pressed Meta and Google to explain how far White House outreach went in shaping their censorship decisions.

A Senate hearing this week discussed government influence on online speech, as senior executives from Meta and Google faced questions about the Biden administration’s communications with their companies during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The session, titled “Part II of Shut Your App: How Uncle Sam Jawboned Big Tech Into Silencing Americans,” highlighted the growing concern in Washington over what lawmakers describe as government-driven pressure to suppress lawful expression.
Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), who led the hearing, began by declaring that “the right to speak out is the foundation of a free society” and warning that “censorship around the world is growing.”
He accused the Biden administration of pushing technology companies to restrict Americans’ speech during the pandemic, and he faulted both the companies and Democrats for failing to resist that pressure.
“Today, we pick off where the story left off,” Cruz said, pointing to Meta and Google as examples of firms that “were pressured by the Biden administration to censor the American people.”
He pledged to introduce the Jawbone Act, which he said would “provide a robust right to redress when Americans are targeted by their own government.”
Markham Erickson, Google’s Vice President of Government Affairs and Public Policy, defended the company’s approach, emphasizing that its moderation decisions are guided by long-standing internal policies, not by government direction.
“While we are a company dedicated to the goal of making the world’s information universally accessible, that doesn’t mean that we don’t have certain rules,” Erickson said, citing restrictions on “terrorist content, child sexual abuse material, hate speech, and other harmful content.”
He acknowledged that officials in the Biden administration had contacted Google during the pandemic to urge the removal of certain COVID-19 content from YouTube.
But Erickson maintained that the company “develop[ed] and enforce[d] our policies independently” and “rejected suggestions that did not align with those policies.”
Erickson also alleged that Google has a record of resisting censorship demands from foreign governments, citing its refusal to remove politically sensitive videos in Russia despite threats of imprisonment against employees and fines “that exceed more than the world’s GDP.”
Neil Potts, Meta’s Vice President of Public Policy, took a more reflective stance.
He reiterated that Meta has a “foundational commitment to free expression” and acknowledged that the company had yielded to “repeated pressure” from the Biden White House to restrict COVID-related posts, including satire and humor.
“We believe that government pressure was wrong and wish we had been more outspoken about it,” Potts said. He added that Meta “should not compromise our content standards due to pressure from any administration in either direction.”
Potts pointed to policy changes the company has made since then, such as ending its third-party fact-checking program, reducing restrictions on political topics, and adopting what he described as “a more personalized approach to political content.”
These steps, he said, were intended to “return to our ideals about free expression” and “allow for more speech.”
Senator Cruz pressed both executives on whether their companies regretted complying with government demands.
Potts responded that Meta “do[es] regret our actions for not speaking out more forcefully.”
Erickson, however, declined to use similar language, saying Google regularly receives “outreach from a lot of actors” and evaluates flagged material independently.
The exchange grew more pointed as Cruz questioned Google’s removal of a YouTube video that compiled election-fraud claims made by both major parties. Erickson conceded, “Yes, that is news,” when Cruz asked whether statements by presidential candidates about election integrity should be considered newsworthy.
But Erickson defended YouTube’s policies during the 2020 election, saying that after states had certified results, the company acted against “claims of widespread fraud” due to potential “real-world harm.”
Cruz accused Google of ideological bias and suggested the company was “unwilling to express regret for anything at all.”
He contrasted that with Meta’s statement of remorse and concluded that Google’s position reflected “a level of contempt for free speech that does not reflect well.”
Where Erickson had insisted that Google “continued to develop and enforce our policies independently,” the company’s letter to Congress acknowledged that “Senior Biden Administration officials, including White House officials, conducted repeated and sustained outreach” urging the removal of COVID-19 content that did not violate platform rules.
This was somewhat of a departure from the defensive posture Google maintained before the Senate.
You read Reclaim The Net because you believe in something deeper than headlines; you believe in the enduring values of free speech, individual liberty, and the right to privacy.
Every issue we publish is part of a larger fight: preserving the principles that built this country and protecting them from erosion in the digital age.
With your help, we can do more than simply hold the line: we can push back. We can shine a light on censorship, expose growing surveillance overreach, and give a voice to those being silenced.
If you’ve found any value in our work, please consider becoming a supporter.
Your support helps us expand our reach, educate more people, and continue this work.
Thank you for your support.
Continue Reading

Internet

Musk launches Grokipedia to break Wikipedia’s information monopoly

Published on November 2, 2025

By

MXM logo MxM News

Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence venture xAI launched “Grokipedia” on Monday — a new online encyclopedia built to challenge what he says is Wikipedia’s entrenched political bias. The site, powered by xAI’s technology and integrated with Grok, the same AI system behind Musk’s X platform, aims to provide a politically balanced alternative to the long-dominant Wikipedia, which critics have accused for years of leftist censorship and selective editing.

Grokipedia, now live in its beta “v0.1” stage, opens with roughly 885,000 entries — a fraction of Wikipedia’s seven million English-language pages but a notable start for a platform that launched just hours ago. Some users experienced temporary errors upon the rollout, but by Monday evening the site was running smoothly. Musk framed the project as part of his broader effort to restore transparency and ideological diversity to the digital space, echoing his moves to overhaul Twitter into X.

The billionaire’s feud with Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has grown increasingly bitter in recent months. Musk has accused Wales of allowing Wikipedia to devolve into a propaganda outlet that protects liberal narratives while suppressing dissenting voices. “Defund Wikipedia until balance is restored,” Musk wrote in a January post on X. Wales, for his part, has dismissed Grokipedia as an unserious experiment, telling the Washington Post last week that AI-generated content is prone to “massive factual errors” and lacks editorial oversight.

Breitbart News has documented numerous examples of Wikipedia’s bias, from its editors smearing Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk following his assassination to attempts to delete articles about his widow Erika Kirk and Ukrainian activist Iryna Zarutska. One editor even proposed deleting Bible verses, while another added Nazi references to politically conservative entries. The site’s governing “neutrality working group,” announced amid backlash, has ignored allegations of left-wing bias and instead congratulated itself on maintaining “neutrality on contentious subjects.”

For Musk, Grokipedia represents more than a product launch — it’s another front in his campaign to dismantle what he sees as the internet’s entrenched progressive gatekeepers. While Wikipedia’s defenders dismiss his challenge as quixotic, the early traffic surge to Grokipedia suggests that many users are ready to see if Musk’s alternative can deliver what the old encyclopedia no longer does: balance, transparency, and a willingness to question the narrative.

(Photo/Alex Brandon)

Continue Reading

Trending

X