Business
Trudeau gov’t threatens to punish tech companies that fail to censor ‘disinformation’
From LifeSiteNews
A report from the House of Commons Heritage Committee claimed that ‘some individuals and groups create disinformation to promote political ideologies including extremist views and conspiracy theories or simply to make money.’
A report from a Canadian federal committee said MPs should enact laws to penalize social media and tech companies that don’t take action to quell so-called “undesirable or questionable” content on the internet.
MPs from the ruling Liberal, New Democratic Party (NDP), and separatists Bloc Québécois party on the House of Commons Heritage Committee summarized their opinions in a report.
“The Government of Canada notes some individuals and groups create disinformation to promote political ideologies including extremist views and conspiracy theories or simply to make money,” reads the report titled Tech Giants’ Intimidation and Subversion Tactics to Evade Regulation in Canada and Globally.
“Disinformation creates ‘doubt and confusion’ and can be particularly harmful when it involves health information,” it continues.
The report notes how such “disinformation” can cause “financial harms as well as political polarization and distrust in key institutions,” adding, “The prevalence of disinformation can be difficult to determine.”
As noted in Blacklock’s Reporter, the report claims that many of Canada’s “major societal harms” have come from “unregulated social media platforms relying on algorithms to amplify content, among them disinformation and conspiracy theories.”
Of note is the committee failed to define what “disinformation” or “conspiracy theories” meant.
Most of the MPs on the committee made the recommendation that Google, Facebook, and other social media platforms, which ironically have at one point or another clamped down on free speech themselves, “put mechanisms in place to detect undesirable or questionable content that may be the product of disinformation or foreign interference and that these platforms be required to promptly identify such content and report it to users.”
“Failure to do so should result in penalties,” the report stated.
As it stands, the federal government under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has plowed ahead to push laws impacting free speech online.
As reported by LifeSiteNews, Canadian legal group The Democracy Fund (TDF) warned that the Liberal government’s Bill C-63 seeks to further clamp down on online speech and will “weaponize” the nation’s courts to favor the ruling federal party and do nothing but create an atmosphere of “fear.”
Bill C-63 was introduced by Liberal Justice Minister Arif Virani in the House of Commons in February and was immediately blasted by constitutional experts as troublesome.
Jordan Peterson, one of Canada’s most prominent psychologists, recently accused the bill of attempting to create a pathway to allow for “Orwellian Thought Crime” to become the norm in the nation.
Conservative MPs fight back: ‘A government bureaucracy should not regulate content’
Conservative MPs fought back the Heritage Committee’s majority findings and in a Dissenting Report said the committee did not understand what the role of the internet is in society, which is that it should be free from regulation.
“The main report failed to adequately explore the state of censorship in Canada and the role played by tech giants and the current federal government,” the Conservatives wrote in their dissenting report, adding, “Canadians are increasingly being censored by the government and tech giants as to what they can see, hear and say online.”
The Conservative MPs noted that when it comes to the internet, it is “boundless,” and that “Anyone who wants to have a presence on the internet can have one.”
“A government bureaucracy should not regulate which content should be prioritized and which should be demoted,” it noted, adding, “There is space for all.”
LifeSiteNews reported how the Conservative Party has warned that Trudeau’s Bill C-63 is so flawed that it will never be able to be enforced or become known before the next election.
The law calls for the creation of a Digital Safety Commission, a digital safety ombudsperson, and the Digital Safety Office, all tasked with policing internet content.
The bill’s “hate speech” section is accompanied by broad definitions, severe penalties, and dubious tactics, including levying pre-emptive judgments against people if they are feared to be likely to commit an act of “hate” in the future.
Details of the new legislation also show the bill could lead to more people jailed for life for “hate crimes” or fined $50,000 and jailed for posts that the government defines as “hate speech” based on gender, race, or other categories.
By I have my opinions about which academic research is worth funding with public money and which isn’t. I also understand if you couldn’t care less about what I think. But I expect we’ll all share similar feelings about research that’s actually been retracted by the academic journals where it was published.
Globally, millions of academic papers are published each year. Many – perhaps most – were funded by universities, charitable organizations, or governments. It’s estimated that hundreds of thousands of those papers contain serious errors, irreproducible results, or straight-up plagiarized or false content.
Not only are those papers useless, but they clog up the system and slow down the real business of science. Keeping up with the serious literature coming out in your field is hard enough, but when genuine breakthroughs are buried under thick layers of trash, there’s no hope.
The Audit is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Society doesn’t need those papers and taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay for their creation. The trick, however, is figuring out how to identify likely trash before we approve a grant proposal.
I just discovered a fantastic tool that can help. The good people behind the Retraction Watch site also provide a large dataset currently containing full descriptions and metadata for more than 60,000 retracted papers. The records include publication authors, titles, and subjects; reasons for the retractions; and any institutions with which the papers were associated.
Using that information, I can tell you that 798 of those 60,000 papers have an obvious Canadian connection. Around half of those papers were retracted in the last five years – so the dataset is still timely.
There’s no single Canadian institution that’s responsible for a disproportionate number of clunkers. The data contains papers associated with 168 Canadian university faculties and 400 hospital departments. University of Toronto overall has 26 references, University of British Columbia has 18, and McMaster and University of Ottawa both have nine. Research associated with various departments of Toronto’s Sick Children’s Hospital combined account for 27 retractions.
To be sure, just because your paper shows up on the list doesn’t mean you’ve done anything wrong. For example, while 20 of the retractions were from the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada, those were all pulled because they were out of date. That’s perfectly reasonable.
I focused on Canadian retractions identified by designations like Falsification (38 papers), Plagiarism (41), Results Not Reproducible (21), and Unreliable (130). It’s worth noting that some of those papers could have been flagged for more than one issue.
Of the 798 Canadian retractions, 218 were flagged for issues of serious concern. Here are the subjects that have been the heaviest targets for concerns about quality:
|
|
You many have noticed that the total of those counts comes to far more than 218. That’s because many papers touch on multiple topics.
For those of you keeping track at home, there were 1,263 individual authors involved in those 218 questionable papers. None of them had more than five such papers and only a very small handful showed up in four or five cases. Although there would likely be value in looking a bit more closely at their publishing histories.
This is just about as deep as I’m going to dig into this data right now. But the papers I’ve identified are probably just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to lousy (and expensive) research. So we’ve got an interest in identifying potentially problematic disciplines or institutions. And, thanks to Retraction Watch, we now have the tools.
Kyle Briggs over at CanInnovate has been thinking and writing about these issues for years. He suggests that stemming the crippling flow of bad research will require a serious realigning of the incentives that currently power the academic world.
That, according to Briggs, is most likely to happen by forcing funding agencies to enforce open data requirements – and that includes providing access to the programming code used by the original researchers. It’ll also be critical to truly open up access to research to allow meaningful crowd-sourced review.
Those would be excellent first steps.
The Audit is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Invite your friends and earn rewards
MxM News
Quick Hit:
Elon Musk said Saturday that all federal employees must submit a productivity report if they wish to keep their jobs. Employees received an email requesting details on what they accomplished in the past week, with failure to respond being treated as a resignation.
Key Details:
-
Musk stated that federal employees must submit their reports by 11:59 p.m. on Monday or be considered as having resigned.
-
Musk emphasized that the process should take under five minutes, stating that “an email with some bullet points that make any sense at all is acceptable.”
-
FBI Director Kash Patel instructed agency employees not to comply with the request for now, stating that the bureau will handle reviews internally according to FBI procedures.
Diving Deeper:
Federal employees have been given a strict deadline to justify their jobs, as DOGE pushes for greater accountability within the government. The email came late Saturday, explaining that all federal workers would be required to submit a brief productivity report detailing their accomplishments from the previous week. Those who do not respond will be deemed to have resigned.
Musk framed the requirement as a minimal effort, writing on X that “the bar is very low.” He assured employees that simply providing bullet points that “make any sense at all” would suffice and that the report should take less than five minutes to complete.
The policy aligns with President Trump’s push for increased efficiency in government. The Office of Personnel Management confirmed the initiative, stating that agencies would determine any further steps following the reports. Meanwhile, FBI Director Kash Patel pushed back, advising bureau employees not to comply for the time being, stating that the FBI would handle its own review process.
The policy has drawn sharp criticism from the American Federation of Government Employees, which blasted Musk’s involvement, accusing him of disrespecting public servants. The union vowed to fight any terminations resulting from the initiative.
Musk also took aim at the White House’s Rapid Response account after it listed recent Trump administration actions, including expanding IVF access and cutting benefits for illegal immigrants. In response, Musk quipped that simply sending an email with coherent words was enough to meet the requirement, reiterating that expectations for the reports were low.
The directive comes as Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency seeks to eliminate waste across federal agencies, signaling a broader crackdown on bureaucratic inefficiencies under the Trump administration.
Did the Liberals Backdoor Ruby Dhalla to Hand Mark Carney the Crown?
U.S. tariffs or not, Canada needs to build new oil and gas pipeline space fast
Explosive New RCMP Transcript Renews Spotlight on Trudeau, Butts, Telford—Powers Behind Mark Carney’s Leadership Bid
Bipartisan US Coalition Finally Tells Europe, and the FBI, to Shove It
-
National10 hours ago
Did the Liberals Backdoor Ruby Dhalla to Hand Mark Carney the Crown?
-
Energy1 day agoFederal Government Suddenly Reverses on Critical Minerals – Over Three Years Too Late – MP Greg McLean
-
Health1 day agoRFK Jr: There’s no medical justification for vaccinating one-day-old babies for Hepatitis B
-
National1 day agoAndrew Scheer exposes the Mark Carney Canadians should know
-
Indigenous2 days agoTrudeau gov’t to halt funds for ‘unmarked graves’ search after millions spent, no bodies found
-
Business1 day agoWorst kept secret—red tape strangling Canada’s economy
-
Daily Caller1 day agoKash Patel First Statement As FBI Director, Tells Media ‘Bring It On’
-
Business2 days agoPepsiCo joins growing list of companies tweaking DEI policies