Connect with us

Censorship Industrial Complex

Newly Released Documents Reveal Big Tech Limited Millions of Posts During EU Elections

Published

8 minute read

From Reclaim The Net

By

Ah, elections—the pinnacle of democracy where the common folk cast their ballots and, ideally, choose their fate. But hold onto your hats, because behind the grandeur of the European Parliament elections this year lurked a very different sort of governance, one executed not in the open streets but in algorithmic backrooms. Welcome to the Age of Censorship-as-a-Service, brought to you by our ever-dependable friends at Meta, Google, and TikTok.
Meta’s Mission: Make the Truth More… Manageable
Let’s begin with Meta. In a move that feels like something out of a dystopian satire, Meta proudly announced they had reduced the reach of tens of millions of posts across Europe. They wielded over 150,000 Facebook fact-checking articles to de-escalate the virality of 30 million pieces of content.
According to Meta, this wasn’t censorship—no, it was a mere “scaling of the work of independent fact-checkers.” The way they tell it, this was all in the name of maintaining “informed and reliable discussions.” Ah, reliable discussions, where only pre-approved, EU-certified opinions are allowed to flow freely.
Of course, official government statements and the edicts from the holy temples of global health organizations were entirely exempt from Meta’s moderating fervor. After all, why impede the credibility of those who are never wrong—except, of course, when they are, but let’s not get hung up on inconvenient details like that.
On Instagram, another Meta product, this brave new moderation mission persisted. The platform used 39,000 fact-checking articles to put the brakes on nearly a million posts. That’s right—one million “potentially hazardous” thoughts and opinions that, for the good of humanity, needed a little algorithmic throttle. And if you were wondering, it wasn’t just the memes of conspiracy theorists—they made sure that you, your grandma, and that neighbor with too many political opinions got the message too: “Play nice, or we’ll see to it no one hears you.”
TikTok: Suppressing, But Make It Fashionable
Meta wasn’t the only digital nanny keeping Europeans in line. Over at TikTok, the playbook got even hazier. The platform took pride in admitting that it restricted misleading posts—though, unlike Meta, TikTok kept the numbers conveniently vague. You see, their strategy was more about “awareness,” guiding content creators with a gentle algorithmic shove away from the tempting edges of disinformation. How thoughtful.
As if to prove their dedication to curated reality, TikTok also pointed Irish users in the direction of fact-checks from TheJournal.ie, an outlet that coincidentally receives EU funding. No conflict of interest there, right? Just an honest effort to “raise awareness.” And while TikTok didn’t offer up the numbers, we can be assured that plenty of thumbs danced across phone screens only to find their intended messages conveniently dulled down or disappeared.
Google: Where Terms of Service Are Optional
And then we have Google, that beacon of a supposedly neutral search engine—except when it isn’t. Reports show that YouTube, under Google’s magnanimous ownership, automatically deboosted videos that complied with their very own terms of service. Yes, you read that right. Even when content passed muster by their own rulebook, some unseen hand deemed it “unworthy.” Google tells us this was to curb the spread of misinformation. A noble aim, except for that pesky issue of who gets to decide what counts as misinformation—and why.
Critics, like Tom Vandendriessche, an MEP for Patriots for Europe, have not been fooled by the big, earnest proclamations of “integrity protection.”
Vandendriessche—whose party has fought and won against Big Tech’s silencing efforts—paints a stark picture of unchecked power: tech companies with unprecedented influence, deciding who gets heard and who doesn’t.
“This could lead to an era of ‘techno-communism,'” Vandendriessche argued to Brussels Signal, where an unelected cabal decides what constitutes reality for the rest of us. A “techno-communism” where, if your thoughts don’t align with the given narrative, they might as well not exist.
It’s not like Vandendriessche is shouting into the void, either. His criticism comes backed by experience, his party having already tasted the bitter fruits of deplatforming. If a democratically elected official can’t even get his voice out there without tech giants intervening, what hope is there for the average citizen with an inconvenient truth?
The EU’s Seal of Approval: Trust Us, We’re Here to Help
But let’s not forget the EU brass, who are, predictably, patting Big Tech on the back. Věra Jourová seems to believe they’ve stumbled onto some grand new way to “protect the integrity of elections.” Their stance on Big Tech’s secretive influence campaign was remarkably sunny—because nothing says “protecting democracy” like a few ultra-rich corporations quietly deciding what can or cannot be said during election season.
What’s fascinating is the conviction with which the EU spins this story. They genuinely believe—or want us to believe—that this centralized control is for our benefit, a way to combat the terrifying specter of “disinformation.” Clearly, the best way to fight misinformation is to silence millions of voices, all while exempting the officials and organizations whose statements are apparently beyond reproach. Trust us, they say: We’re only limiting the information you receive for your own good.

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

Censorship Industrial Complex

Death by a thousand clicks – government censorship of Canada’s internet

Published on

Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms announces its latest publication, Death by a thousand clicks: The rise of internet censorship and control in Canada, authored by veteran journalist and researcher Nigel Hannaford. The report outlines how recommendations from the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review Panel in 2020 set the stage for a series of federal bills that have collectively transformed Canada’s once open internet into a state-managed digital environment that restricts what Canadians may access, share, and say online.

The report highlights the following federal legislation:

Online Streaming Act (C-11): Passed in 2023, this Bill gives the CRTC power to regulate online videos and other content, including material created by everyday Canadians. It also lets the government influence online “discoverability,” meaning it can push certain content to the top of your feeds while making other content harder to find.

Online News Act (C-18): Also passed in 2023, this Bill forces platforms to pay approved news outlets, a measure that led to increased dependence of media organizations on the government and widespread blocking of Canadian news as a result of Meta’s news ban on Facebook and Instagram.

Online Harms Act (C-63): Although this Bill was halted by the 2025 election, it would have empowered a new “Digital Safety Commission” to order content removals, demand platform data, levy severe financial penalties on service providers for non-compliance with regulations created by the federal cabinet, and impose house arrest on Canadians who had not been charged with or convicted of any crime. It also would have allowed the Canadian Human Rights Commission to pursue Canadians over non-criminal “discriminatory” speech, together creating a sweeping censorship regime under the guise of addressing so-called “harms” that were already illegal.

Strong Borders Act (C-2): Introduced in June 2025 and currently at second reading, this Bill authorizes law enforcement to obtain subscriber information and metadata without a warrant, chilling anonymous online expression and eroding digital privacy.

An Act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts (C-8): Introduced in April 2025 and now before committee, this Bill expands government access to private networks and enables federal officials to direct telecommunications providers to kick individual Canadians off the internet without due process or appeal.

Combatting Hate Act (C-9): Introduced in September 2025 and currently before Parliament, this Bill broadens “hate-propaganda” offences, removes Attorney General oversight for prosecutions, encourages widespread self-censorship, and makes Canada more like the United Kingdom, where thousands of citizens are arrested over their social media commentary.

Report author Nigel Hannaford said, “It is important for Canadians to know that these bills are not isolated technical updates. Together they form a coordinated shift toward state-managed digital speech.”

“If we value open debate, privacy, and democratic accountability, we need to repeal the laws already passed and stop the ones now before Parliament,” he added.

Benjamin Klassen, Research and Education Coordinator for the Justice Centre, said, “It is important Canadians stay informed about these important issues. An informed public is essential to a free society.”

“Through research reports like this one, our Education team works to explain complex legislation in a way that empowers Canadians to participate in the national debate around important policies and defend their rights and freedoms,” he added.

To protect free expression online, Canadians should demand the repeal of Bills C-11 and C-18, insist that MPs vote against Bills C-2, C-8, and C-9, and elect representatives committed to restoring a free and open internet.

Continue Reading

Censorship Industrial Complex

Canadian university censors free speech advocate who spoke out against Indigenous ‘mass grave’ hoax

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

A Canadian academic who spoke out against claims there are mass unmarked graves of kids on former Indigenous residential schools, and who was arrested on a university campus as a result for trespassing, is fighting back with the help of a top constitutional group.

Dr. Frances Widdowson was arrested and given a ticket on December 2, 2025, at the University of Victoria (UVic) campus after trying to engage in conversation about “the disputed claims of unmarked graves in Kamloops,” noted the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) in a recent news release.

According to the JCCF, Widdowson was trying to initiate a “good faith” conversation with people on campus, along with the leader of OneBC provincial party, Dallas Brodi.

“My arrest at the University of Victoria is an indication of an institution that is completely unmoored from its academic purpose,” said Widdowson in a statement made available to LifeSiteNews.

She added that the “institution” has been “perpetuating the falsehood” of the remains of 215 children “being confirmed at Kamloops since 2021, and is intent on censoring any correction of this claim.”

“This should be of concern for everyone who believes that universities should be places of open inquiry and critical thinking, not propaganda and indoctrination,” she added.

UVic had the day before Widdowson’s arrest warned on its website that those in favor of free speech were “not permitted to attend UVic property for the purpose of speaking publicly.”

Despite the warning, Widdowson, when she came to campus, was met with some “100 aggressive protesters assembled where she intended to speak at Petch Fountain,” noted the JCCF.

The protesters consisted of self-identified Communists, along with Antifa-aligned people and Hamas supporters.

“When she declined to leave, she was arrested, detained for about two hours, and charged under British Columbia’s Trespass Act—an offence punishable by fines up to $2,000 or up to six months’ imprisonment,” said the JCCF.

According to Constitutional lawyer Glenn Blackett, UVic actions are shameful, as it “receives hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars annually while it facilitates the arrest of Canadians attempting to engage in free inquiry on campus.”

Widdowson’s legal team, with the help of the JCCF, will be defending her ticket to protect her “Charter-protected freedoms of expression and peaceful assembly.”

Widdowson served as a tenured professor at Mount Royal University in Calgary, Alberta, before she was fired over criticism of her views on identity politics and Indigenous policy, notes the JCCF. She was vindicated, however, as an arbitrator later found her termination was wrongful.

In 2021 and 2022, the mainstream media ran with inflammatory and dubious claims that hundreds of children were buried and disregarded by Catholic priests and nuns who ran some Canadian residential schools. The reality is, after four years, there have been no mass graves discovered at residential schools.

However, as the claims went unfounded, over 120 churches, most of them Catholic and many of them on Indigenous lands that serve the local population, have been burned to the ground, vandalized, or defiled in Canada since the spring of 2021.

Last year, retired Manitoba judge Brian Giesbrecht said Canadians are being “deliberately deceived by their own government” after blasting the former Trudeau government for “actively pursuing” a policy that blames the Catholic Church for the unfounded “deaths and secret burials” of Indigenous children.

As reported by LifeSiteNews, new private members’ Bill C-254, “An Act To Amend The Criminal Code” introduced by New Democrat MP Leah Gazan, looks to give jail time to people who engage in so-called “Denialism.” The bill would look to jail those who question the media and government narrative surrounding Canada’s “Indian Residential School system” that there are mass graves despite no evidence to support this claim.

Continue Reading

Trending

X