Internet
Meta’s “Threat to Democracy” gets federal ad dollars

Trudeau’s Meta Meltdown: From “Threat to Democracy” to Paid Partner in Record Time
Justin Trudeau and his Liberals just bent the knee to Mark Zuckerberg. After months of grandstanding, after endless moralizing about the dangers of Big Tech, after accusing Meta of threatening Canadian democracy—yesterday, Trudeau caved. The same Liberal government that once pulled all federal advertising from Facebook and Instagram in protest of Meta’s decision to block Canadian news quietly resumed buying ads on the platform. And just like that, the so-called existential crisis was forgotten.
The reason? In wake of the next federal election and a housing crisis the Trudeau government needs to sell its latest housing plan. They’ve set aside up to $100,000 in taxpayer money to advertise their GST break on rental housing investments—using the very platform they declared an enemy of democracy. So, the threat wasn’t serious enough to actually stick to their boycott, but it was serious enough to justify months of outrage. That’s the hypocrisy of the Liberal Party. Trudeau threw a tantrum when Meta refused to bankroll his failing legacy media allies, but the moment he needed to push his own messaging, he came crawling back.
How We Got Here: Trudeau’s Failed Attempt to Shake Down Big Tech
This entire mess started with Bill C-18, the Online News Act, a piece of legislation that was doomed from the start. The bill was designed to force tech companies like Meta and Google to pay Canadian media outlets for news links shared on their platforms. Trudeau and his allies tried to frame this as a move to “save Canadian journalism,” when in reality, it was just another corporate welfare scheme for failing legacy media outlets that can’t survive without government handouts.
But here’s the problem: Meta doesn’t need Canadian news. Trudeau bet that tech giants wouldn’t dare cut off an entire country’s news industry. He thought they’d cave, fork over millions, and fund his media cronies. Instead, Meta called his bluff and blocked Canadian news entirely.
Overnight, all Canadian news links disappeared from Facebook and Instagram. It was a foreseeable consequence, something anyone with basic common sense could have predicted. But the Trudeau government, in its usual arrogance, pushed forward anyway.
In retaliation, Trudeau and his ministers pulled all federal ad spending from Meta’s platforms. He went in front of the cameras, shaking with righteous fury, calling Meta’s decision an assault on democracy itself. He even tried to claim it was a life-and-death issue—arguing that, during emergencies like the devastating wildfires in British Columbia and the Northwest Territories, Canadians were being put at risk because they couldn’t access news on Facebook.
This was always a lie. And Trudeau’s decision to return to Meta proves it.
The Impact: Trudeau Hurt Canadian Media, Not Big Tech
Let’s be clear about what really happened: Bill C-18 didn’t save journalism—it crippled it.
News outlets relied on social media to drive traffic to their websites. By forcing Meta’s hand, Trudeau effectively cut off a major traffic source for the very media companies he claimed to be helping. According to the Media Ecosystem Observatory, engagement with Canadian news outlets plummeted by 85% on Facebook and Instagram. That’s an estimated 11 million fewer daily views—a devastating blow to an industry already on life support.
The Liberals pretended that Big Tech was the enemy, but the real victims of Bill C-18 weren’t the tech companies—it was the Canadian media outlets who suddenly lost their audience. Small, independent newsrooms—already struggling to compete with taxpayer-funded giants like the CBC—saw their reach collapse overnight. And while Trudeau patted himself on the back for “standing up” to Meta, actual journalists lost their jobs.
So what did the Liberals do? They doubled down. They called Meta’s move “censorship,” as if blocking news links—a direct response to the government’s own law—was somehow an attack on free speech. They accused Zuckerberg of blackmail, of manipulating Canadian politics, of undermining democracy itself. But now, just months later, they’re happily handing taxpayer money back to Meta. If this was really about democracy, if this was really about public safety, then why is Trudeau suddenly fine with using the very platform he condemned?
The biggest takeaway here is how fake the Liberals’ outrage always was. Trudeau screamed about Meta blocking news during wildfire season, claiming Canadians were being denied vital safety information. But now, the government has admitted that if it really wants to reach Canadians, all it has to do is buy some ads.
So why didn’t they just do that in the first place? If getting wildfire updates to people was really the issue, the government could have bought ad space months ago to ensure critical information reached Canadians. But they didn’t—because this was never about public safety. It was never about “access to news.” It was never about “protecting democracy.”
It was about Trudeau trying to force Big Tech to fund his media allies.
This government has spent years bailing out failing legacy media outlets with taxpayer money. From direct subsidies to CBC’s bloated budget, the Liberals have been funneling cash into the media industry in exchange for favorable coverage. Bill C-18 was just another attempt to shake down tech companies to keep the gravy train rolling. But instead of forcing Big Tech to pay up, Trudeau screwed over the very industry he was claiming to protect.
Why Bill C-18 Was Destined to Fail
This was always going to be a disaster. The entire premise of the law was backwards. Instead of recognizing that platforms like Facebook were driving traffic to news outlets for free, Trudeau decided to tax them for it. The predictable response? They just stopped offering the service entirely.
This is the equivalent of a grocery store charging brands a mandatory fee every time a customer picks up a product. The logical response? The brands pull their products from the shelves. That’s exactly what happened here. Meta doesn’t need news content to survive—but Canadian news organizations do need Meta.
Instead of acknowledging reality, Trudeau doubled down on his losing hand, cutting off ad spending, demonizing tech companies, and insisting he was fighting for democracy. And now, after months of that performative outrage, he’s quietly slipping money back into Meta’s pockets, hoping no one notices.
Bill C-18: The Final Humiliation
Let’s summarize, just so we’re all clear on the level of incompetence we’re dealing with here.
Justin Trudeau picked a fight with Meta. Meta laughed in his face, called his bluff, and walked away. Canadian media—already on life support—got crushed in the crossfire. The Liberals, in their usual fashion, threw a hissy fit, cut all government ad spending from Meta, and declared they were taking a stand for democracy. Trudeau even had the audacity to claim that blocking news on Facebook was putting lives at risk—as if Canadians were sitting in wildfire-ravaged forests desperately refreshing their Facebook feeds for government updates.
And now? The Liberals just quietly reversed course, handing Mark Zuckerberg a fat stack of taxpayer cash. Why? Well, because they need to get their message out ahead of a leadership race and looming Trump tariffs. That’s right—they prorogued Parliament because their own party is in shambles, but hey, they’ve still got time to run ads on the “threat to democracy” platform.
And the best part? The real kicker? They could have done this for free the entire time. The government could have just posted its messaging online, at no cost, instead of spending months whining about how Meta was silencing Canadians. But no—because that would have required foresight, competence, and a functioning brain, none of which exist in this Liberal government.
So let’s just spell it out: This wasn’t about saving journalism. It wasn’t about protecting democracy. It wasn’t even about keeping Canadians informed during emergencies. This was about Trudeau trying to strong-arm Big Tech into funding his media lapdogs, failing miserably, and now pathetically crawling back, hoping no one notices.
And now, after all that grandstanding, all that moralizing, all that taxpayer money wasted on a failed stunt, Trudeau is quietly slipping dollars back into Zuckerberg’s pockets—all while pretending like none of this ever happened.
Embarrassing.
Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .
For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
Censorship Industrial Complex
Alberta senator wants to revive lapsed Trudeau internet censorship bill

From LifeSiteNews
Senator Kristopher Wells and other senators are ‘interested’ in reviving the controversial Online Harms Act legislation that was abandoned after the election call.
A recent Trudeau-appointed Canadian senator said that he and other “interested senators” want the current Liberal government of Prime Minister Mark Carney to revive a controversial Trudeau-era internet censorship bill that lapsed.
Kristopher Wells, appointed by former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau last year as a senator from Alberta, made the comments about reviving an internet censorship bill recently in the Senate.
“In the last Parliament, the government proposed important changes to the Criminal Code of Canada designed to strengthen penalties for hate crime offences,” he said of Bill C-63 that lapsed earlier this year after the federal election was called.
Bill C-63, or the Online Harms Act, was put forth under the guise of protecting children from exploitation online.
While protecting children is indeed a duty of the state, the bill included several measures that targeted vaguely defined “hate speech” infractions involving race, gender, and religion, among other categories. The proposal was thus blasted by many legal experts.
The Online Harms Act would have in essence censored legal internet content that the government thought “likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group.” It would be up to the Canadian Human Rights Commission to investigate complaints.
Wells said that “Bill C-63 did not come to a vote in the other place and in the dying days of the last Parliament the government signaled it would be prioritizing other aspects of the bill.”
“I believe Canada must get tougher on hate and send a clear and unequivocal message that hate and extremism will never be tolerated in this country no matter who it targets,” he said.
Carney, as reported by LifeSiteNews, vowed to continue in Trudeau’s footsteps, promising even more legislation to crack down on lawful internet content.
Before the April 28 election call, the Liberals were pushing Bill C-63.
Wells asked if the current Carney government remains “committed to tabling legislation that will amend the Criminal Code as proposed in the previous Bill C-63 and will it commit to working with interested senators and community stakeholders to make the changes needed to ensure this important legislation is passed?”
Seasoned Senator Marc Gold replied that he is not in “a position to speculate” on whether a new bill would be brought forward.
Before Bill C-63, a similar law, Bill C-36, lapsed in 2021 due to that year’s general election.
As noted by LifeSiteNews, Wells has in the past advocated for closing Christian schools that refuse to violate their religious principles by accepting so-called Gay-Straight Alliance Clubs and spearheaded so-called “conversion therapy bans.”
Other internet censorship bills that have become law have yet to be fully implemented.
Last month, LifeSiteNews reported that former Minister of Environment Steven Guilbeault, known for his radical climate views, will be the person in charge of implementing Bill C-11, a controversial bill passed in 2023 that aims to censor legal internet content in Canada.
Business
Telegram founder Pavel Durov exposes crackdown on digital privacy in Tucker Carlson interview

From LifeSiteNews
By Robert Jones
Durov, who was detained in France in 2024, believes governments are seeking to dismantle personal freedoms.
Tucker Carlson has interviewed Telegram founder Pavel Durov, who remains under judicial restrictions in France nearly a year after a surprise arrest left him in solitary confinement for four days — without contact with his family, legal clarity, or access to his phone.
Durov, a Russian-born tech executive now based in Dubai, had arrived in Paris for a short tourist visit. Upon landing, he was arrested and accused of complicity in crimes committed by Telegram users — despite no evidence of personal wrongdoing and no prior contact from French authorities on the matter.
In the interview, Durov said Telegram has always complied with valid legal requests for IP addresses and other data, but that France never submitted any such requests — unlike other EU states.
Telegram has surpassed a billion users and over $500 million in profit without selling user data, and has notably refused to create government “backdoors” to its encryption. That refusal, Durov believes, may have triggered the incident.
READ: Arrest of Telegram founder Pavel Durov signals an increasing threat to digital freedom
French prosecutors issued public statements, an unusual move, at the time of his arrest, fueling speculation that the move was meant to send a message.
At present, Durov remains under “judicial supervision,” which limits his movement and business operations.
Carlson noted the irony of Durov’s situating by calling to mind that he was not arrested by Russian President Vladimir Putin but rather a Western democracy.
Former President of Russia Dmitry Medvedev has said that Durov should have stayed in Russia, and that he was mistaken in thinking that he would not have to cooperate with foreign security services.
Durov told Carlson that mandates for encryption “backdoors” endanger all users, not just suspects. Once created, such tools inevitably become accessible to hackers, foreign agents, and hostile regimes.
“In the US,” he commented, “you have a process that allows the government to actually force any engineer in any tech company to implement a backdoor and not tell anyone about it.”
READ: Does anyone believe Emmanuel Macron’s claim that Pavel Durov’s arrest was not political?
Durov also pointed to a recent French bill — which was ultimately defeated in the National Assembly — that would have required platforms to break encryptions on demand. A similar EU proposal is now under discussion, he noted.
Despite the persecution, Durov remains committed to Telegram’s model. “We monetize in ways that are consistent with our values,” he told Carlson. “We monetized without violating privacy.”
There is no clear timeline for a resolution of Durov’s case, which has raised serious questions about digital privacy, online freedom, and the limits of compliance for tech companies in the 21st century.
-
Crime2 days ago
How Chinese State-Linked Networks Replaced the Medellín Model with Global Logistics and Political Protection
-
Addictions2 days ago
New RCMP program steering opioid addicted towards treatment and recovery
-
Aristotle Foundation2 days ago
We need an immigration policy that will serve all Canadians
-
Business2 days ago
Natural gas pipeline ownership spreads across 36 First Nations in B.C.
-
Courageous Discourse2 days ago
Healthcare Blockbuster – RFK Jr removes all 17 members of CDC Vaccine Advisory Panel!
-
Business21 hours ago
EU investigates major pornographic site over failure to protect children
-
Health1 day ago
RFK Jr. purges CDC vaccine panel, citing decades of ‘skewed science’
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days ago
Alberta senator wants to revive lapsed Trudeau internet censorship bill