Connect with us

Media

Most Canadians oppose internet censorship, federal report finds

Published

2 years ago

5 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

” even those who voiced concern over potentially ‘harmful’ content on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, TikTok, YouTube and Snapchat held that it ‘was the responsibility of individuals’ and not government to determine what Canadians can and cannot view. “

Most Canadians want the Trudeau government to keep its hands off access to the internet, according to a federal report.  

According to information published January 3 by Blacklock’s Reporter, an in-house Privy Council report titled Continuous Qualitative Data Collection Of Canadians’ Views has found that most Canadians believe the federal government should not introduce legislation that would censor internet content.

“Discussing actions which could be taken to mitigate online misinformation and disinformation, participants stressed the role of individual responsibility,” federal government researchers wrote in the report.  

According to the report, even those who voiced concern over potentially harmful content on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, TikTok, YouTube and Snapchat held that it “was the responsibility of individuals” and not government to determine what Canadians can and cannot view.   

The research was contracted out to Strategic Counsel, which gathered information from focus groups in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Québec and Atlantic Canada.  

“A number were of the view it was of critical importance for Canadians to be able to leave comments and have their voices heard regarding initiatives and policies important to them,” the report stated.  

According to the research, Canadians were unsure that legislation to censor internet activity was necessary, or even a good idea, explaining that they could “filter out hateful content” without the government’s intervention.   

“While most believed harmful content online represented a growing concern few felt it to be a major issue at present,” the report said. “Several were of the view that individuals were typically able to avoid harmful content by blocking it or not utilizing platforms on which it was present.” 

“Participants were asked if they were concerned about the spread of misinformation and disinformation,” the research added. “Though all participants reported feeling some degree of concern some also expressed reservations about the potential for censorship in any attempt by the federal government to prevent the proliferation of false information online.”  

The research comes as Canadians are facing increased internet censorship thanks to the Liberal government under the leadership of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.   

This past June, Trudeau’s internet censorship law, Bill C-18, the Online News Act, was passed by the Senate. This law mandates that Big Tech companies pay to publish Canadian content on their platforms.   

As a result, Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, blocked all access to news content in Canada, while Google  agreed to pay Canadian legacy media $100 million under the new legislation.    

Critics of Trudeau’s recent laws, such as tech mogul Elon Musk, have commented that the legislation shows that “Trudeau is trying to crush free speech in Canada.”    

Musk made the comments after the nation’s telecommunications regulator announced that due to new powers granted to it via the Online Streaming Act, certain podcasters will now have to “register” with the government. 

Just last week, the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), Canada’s official broadcast regulator, announced it might soon be producing draft rules for a pre-election “code of conduct” for newsrooms, which includes print and online journalists.  

The “code of conduct” can be legally enforced thanks to a little known clause in the Online News Act. Clause, 27.1.b.iv says newsrooms that want Google money must demonstrate full compliance with a “code of ethics.” This “code” was not defined, however, and Canada has no such national code of newsroom ethics. 

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
Opinion / 11 hours ago

Globally, 2025 had one of the lowest annual death rates from extreme weather in history

Business / 15 hours ago

Land use will be British Columbia’s biggest issue in 2026

Addictions / 16 hours ago

Coffee, Nicotine, and the Politics of Acceptable Addiction

Business

Mainstream media missing in action as YouTuber blows lid off massive taxpayer fraud

Published on December 29, 2025

By

MXM logo MxM News

Vice President JD Vance is giving public credit to a YouTube journalist for doing what he says legacy media and elite institutions have failed to do: follow the money in Minnesota. In a post on X, Vance praised independent reporter Nick Shirley for digging into alleged fraud networks tied to the state, saying Shirley “has done far more useful journalism than any of the winners of the 2024 Pulitzer prizes.” The comment was a direct response to a video Shirley shared online documenting what he described as widespread fraud, with Shirley claiming his team identified more than $110 million in suspicious activity in a single day while confronting facilities allegedly receiving millions in public funds.

Shirley’s reporting has been circulating widely among conservatives, with commentators amplifying clips of him visiting supposed daycare and education centers that appeared inactive despite receiving massive federal aid. Conservative media personality Benny Johnson said Shirley had exposed more than $100 million in Minnesota Somali-linked fraud routed through fake daycare and healthcare fronts, adding to the pressure on state leadership. The issue gained further traction after Tom Emmer, Minnesota’s top House Republican, demanded answers from Gov. Tim Walz following a viral clip showing Shirley confronting workers at an alleged daycare in South Minneapolis. Shirley reported the center, called the “Quality Learning Center,” showed no visible activity despite claims it served up to 99 children, and even misspelled “learning” on its signage. As Shirley approached, a woman inside was heard shouting “Don’t open up,” while incorrectly accusing him of being an ICE agent.

The controversy builds on earlier reporting from City Journal, which published a November investigation citing federal counterterrorism sources who said millions of dollars siphoned through Minnesota fraud schemes had been sent overseas, with some of the money allegedly ending up in the hands of Al-Shabaab. One confidential source quoted in the report bluntly claimed, “The largest funder of Al-Shabaab is the Minnesota taxpayer.” Since that report, the scrutiny has widened inside the Trump administration. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has announced that the Treasury Department is examining whether Minnesota taxpayer funds were diverted to terrorist-linked groups, while Education Secretary Linda McMahon has publicly called on Walz to resign amid separate allegations of large-scale education fraud within the state’s college system.

Taken together, the attention from Vance, congressional Republicans, and multiple federal agencies has elevated Shirley’s reporting from viral internet content to a flashpoint in a broader debate over fraud, accountability, and the role of independent journalists. For the vice president, the message was clear: real accountability sometimes comes not from prize committees or press rooms, but from outsiders willing to ask uncomfortable questions and stand in front of locked doors with a camera rolling.

Largest fraud in US history? Independent Journalist visits numerous daycare centres with no children, revealing massive scam

Continue Reading

Censorship Industrial Complex

US Slams UK and EU Over Online Speech Regulation, Announces Release of Files on Past Censorship Efforts

Published on December 27, 2025

By

logo

By Cindy Harper

Sarah Rogers’ comments draw a new line in the sand between America’s First Amendment and Europe’s tightening grip on online speech.

Speaking during an appearance on The Liz Truss Show, Rogers said Washington intends to respond to the UK’s communications regulator Ofcom after it sought to bring the website 4chan under its jurisdiction.
She said the situation “forced” the US to defend its constitutional protections, warning that “when British regulators decree that British law applies to American speech on American sites on American soil with no connection to Britain,” the matter can no longer be ignored.
Rogers called it “a perverse blessing” that the dispute is forcing a renewed transatlantic conversation about free expression, observing that “Britain and America did develop the free speech tradition together.”
Rogers announced that the State Department will soon publish a collection of previously unreleased internal emails and documents describing earlier US government involvement in social media moderation efforts.
The release is part of what she termed a “truth and reconciliation initiative” that will include material linked to the now-defunct Global Engagement Center, which she said had coordinated with outside organizations to identify content for takedown.
That operation was “immediately dismantled” after she assumed her current post.
She argued that foreign governments have moved from cooperation to coercion in their dealings with US companies. “Europe and the UK and other governments abroad are…trying to nullify the American First Amendment by enforcing against American companies and American speakers and American soil,” Rogers said, referring to the EU’s fine against X and Ofcom’s recent enforcement campaigns.
On domestic policy, she criticized the UK’s Online Safety Act, saying that it is being sold as child protection legislation but in practice functions as a speech control measure.
“These statutes are just censoring adult political speech is not the best way to protect kids and it’s probably the worst way,” she said.
Rogers noted that under such laws, even parliamentary remarks about criminal networks could be censored if regulators deem them harmful.
Turning to Ofcom’s ongoing 4chan case, Rogers said its legal position effectively claims authority over purely American websites.
She offered a hypothetical: “I could go set up a website in my garage…about American political controversies…and Ofcom’s legal position nonetheless is that if I run afoul of British content laws, then I have to pay money for the British government.”
Rogers said she expects the US government to issue a response soon.
Throughout the interview, Rogers framed the current wave of global online regulation as an effort to suppress what she called “chaotic speech” that emerges with every major communications shift.
“People panic and they want to shove that innovation back in the bottle,” she said, warning that such attempts have “never worked.”
Her remarks mark one of the strongest rebukes yet from a senior American official toward the growing European model of compelled content moderation.
Rogers suggested that this model not only undermines open debate but also sets a precedent for governments worldwide to police political speech beyond their borders.
Continue Reading

Trending

X