Censorship Industrial Complex
Jordan Peterson, Canadian lawyer warn of ‘totalitarian’ impact of Trudeau’s ‘Online Harms’ bill
From LifeSiteNews
“You don’t even know who it is… you can be accused regardless of your intent, regardless of the factual [reality], or [the] reality of your utterance, by people who do not have to identify themselves or take any responsibility whatsoever if their denunciation turns out to be false,”
In a recent podcast episode, well-known Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson and Queen’s University law professor Bruce Pardy blasted Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his government over Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act, a proposed piece of legislation which, if passed, could lead to large fines and even jail time for vaguely defined online “hate speech” infractions.
“Recently, the Trudeau woke mob has managed to extend themselves even further into the legal nether lands with a new bill called C-63, which isn’t law in Canada yet, but is soon likely to be, and it is the most totalitarian Western bill I’ve ever seen by quite a large margin and in multiple dimensions,” said Peterson in a recent Everything You Need to Know video podcast dated April 14, which was posted on his YouTube channel.
“And that was my conclusion, upon reading it and then my conclusion, upon rereading it and rereading it again, because I like to make sure I have these things right.”
Joining Peterson was Canadian lawyer Bruce Pardy and podcaster Konstantin Kisin. Pardy serves as executive director of Rights Probe, a law and liberty thinktank, and professor of law at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario. As for Kisin, he is a Russian-British satirist, social commentator, who serves as co-host of the TRIGGERnometry YouTube show.
Peterson noted that in his view, Bill C-63 is “designed… to produce a more general regime for online policing.”
“To me, that’s what it looks like,” he said.
The trio spent the better part of two hours discussing Bill C-63, which was introduced by Justice Minister Arif Virani in the House of Commons in February and was immediately blasted by constitutional experts as troublesome.
Among other things, the bill calls for the creation of a Digital Safety Commission, a digital safety ombudsperson, and the Digital Safety Office, all tasked with policing internet content, including already illegal internet content such as child exploitation material.
However, the bill also seeks to police “hate” speech online with broad definitions, severe penalties, and dubious tactics.
Details of the new legislation to regulate the internet 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.
Right at the start of the interview, Peterson noted that when thinking about Bill C-63, he thought of it as a “real masterpiece of right thinking, utopian, resentful foolishness.”
Due to the fact that the bill allows for accusations to be filed by anyone, and that there is no obligation for the government to reveal the name of the accuser to the accused, Peterson warned that Bill C-63 could see widespread corruption by individuals acting in bad faith.
“You don’t even know who it is… you can be accused regardless of your intent, regardless of the factual [reality], or [the] reality of your utterance, by people who do not have to identify themselves or take any responsibility whatsoever if their denunciation turns out to be false,” he warned.
Pardy chimed in to say that when it comes to Bill C-63, Canadians “don’t even know what the rules are going to be.”
“Basically, it just gives the whole control of the thing to our government agency, to the bureaucrats, to do as they think,” he said.
Regarding Pardy’s remarks, Peterson observed that the Trudeau government is effectively “establishing an entirely new bureaucracy” with an “unspecified range of power with non-specific purview that purports to protect children from online exploitation” but has the possibility of turning itself into an internet “policing state.”
Bill uses protecting kids as ‘cover,’ will have a ‘chilling effect upon speech’
Pardy told Peterson that one of the main issues with C-63, in his view, is that it “starts with the cover of protecting children… from online harm,” but that beneath this “great cover” it “enables” a crackdown on the “very idea of free speech.”
Pardy warned that Bill C-63 will see the return of an “old” Human Rights Act provision, titled Section 13, that was repealed by the Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper in 2013 after it was found to have violated the right to free expression.
“One of the problems with the human rights regime is that complaints can be made very, very easily without a lawyer, without any cost,” said Pardy. “And because the Canadian federal government has jurisdiction over the internet, this section is going to authorize complaints of all kinds to be made against people who are speaking their minds online…”
Pardy noted that the revival of this type of process will “have a chilling effect upon speech, no question about it,” and it risks ending the “idea of free speech itself.”
Pardy observed that society already has a mechanism to protect kids, despite modern society’s idea that the “government is responsible for keeping people safe.”
“That’s ignoring the best mechanism we already have to keep children safe, which is their parents, right. It’s assuming that this is what this state is for if you went up to somebody on the street, anybody at random,” he said.
“We’ve lost the proposition that we’ve made a choice to have this large overwhelming government tell us what to do in place of all of the other things we used to have.”
Speaking further, Pardy observed that what laws like Bill C-63, and many other laws already passed by the Trudeau Liberals such as Bill C-16, are attempting to do, is change the way people perceive how laws should be enforced.
“The ethos of managerialism has supplanted the rule of law as the basic idea instead of the rule of law,” said the law professor.
“We have rule by law now, which means that the law is nothing more than a tool for the government to use to create a law on a whim,” he continued, adding that this is “not the way the Western legal system used to work.”
Criminalizing ‘hateful’ speech is ‘troublesome’ if bureaucrats decide what is ‘hateful’
In a recent opinion piece critical of Bill C-63, law professor Dr. Michael Geist said that the text of the bill is “unmistakable” in how it will affect Canadians’ online freedoms.
Geist noted that the new bill will allow a new digital safety commission to conduct “secret commission hearings” against those found to have violated the law.
“The poorly conceived Digital Safety Commission lacks even basic rules of evidence, can conduct secret hearings, and has been granted an astonishing array of powers with limited oversight. This isn’t a fabrication,” Geist wrote.
He observed specifically how Section 87 of the bill “literally” says “the Commission is not bound by any legal or technical rules of evidence.”
Peterson noted that giving “hate speech” such prominence and such a broad definition is “troublesome” as it will be up to bureaucrats to decide what is “hateful.”
“The whole notion of hateful speech, that’s troublesome. One, for me, because there’s an obvious element of subjective judgment in it,” he said, questioning who gets to decide what is “hateful” and on what “grounds” do they have the authority to make such a judgement.
Peterson warned that if Canada decides to “open the door” of tasking bureaucrats with determining what is or isn’t “hateful” speech, and if it blocks transparency on who is making accusations of hate, it “leads us to anonymous denunciation,” which he sees as dangerous because it fails to hold complainants accountable.
To make his point, Peterson said that “everybody, including every school child who’s like older than three, and maybe even three,” understands that there’s almost “nothing worse than a snitch, and all children are wise enough to know that.”
“Even if you are being bullied at school, let’s say, it has to get pretty damn brutal and bad before going to report it to the authorities is acceptable or justifiable,” he said.
“Now you know you can debate about the conditions under which that should or shouldn’t occur. My point is that even kids know that.”
Geist has noted that when it comes to Bill C-63, the “most obvious solution” to amend the bill “is to cut out the Criminal Code and Human Rights Act provisions, which have nothing to do with establishing internet platform liability for online harms.”
Giving historcal examples for why Bill C-63 worries him, Peterson explained that “we certainly know from places like the Soviet Union, just exactly what happens, or East Germany, what happens when one-third of the citizens, which was the case in East Germany, become government informers.”
“…Trust is gone. The worst people have the upper hand. It’s a complete catastrophe… Now in Bill C-63, you have a concatenation of these problems… now you know hate speech is going to be constrained and it can be identified by anonymous informants,” forecasted the psychologist.
Indeed, it is not just Peterson, Pardy and Geist who are warning of Bill C-63, but major law groups as well.
The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) has said Bill C-63 is “the most serious threat to free expression in Canada in generations. This terrible federal legislation, Bill C -63, would empower the Canadian Human Rights Commission to prosecute Canadians over non-criminal hate speech.”
JCCF president John Carpay recently hand-delivered a petition with 55,000-plus signatures to Canada’s Minister of Justice and all MPs, urging them to reconsider their sponsoring of the law.
From Reclaim The Net
By Cindy Harper
|
Joe Rogan has accused YouTube of making it difficult for users to find his recent interview with former President Donald Trump, saying that the platform initially only displayed short clips from mainstream media instead of the full episode. Rogan sarcastically remarked on YouTube’s actions, saying, “I’m sure it was a mistake at YouTube where you couldn’t search for it. Yeah. I’m sure it was a mistake. It’s just a mistake.”
In episode 2200, Rogan explained that even though his team contacted YouTube multiple times, the episode remained difficult to find. X CEO Elon Musk intervened, contacting Spotify CEO Daniel Ek about the issue. (Spotify exclusively licenses The Joe Rogan Experience but allows the show on third-party platforms like YouTube.) Watch the video clip here. Rogan noted the explosive viewership once the content was available, with the episode racking up “six and a half million views on mine and eight plus million on his.”
Emphasizing the episode’s broad reach, Rogan expressed frustration with the initial suppression, stating, “You can’t suppress shit. It doesn’t work. This is the internet. This is 2024. People are going to realize what you’re doing.” He pointed to the significance of this episode’s reach, asking, “If one show has 36 million downloads in two days, like that’s not trending? Like what’s trending for you? Mr. Beast?” Describing the power of YouTube’s algorithmic influence, Rogan claimed the algorithm worked against the interview’s visibility, only showing clips instead of the full conversation. According to him, when YouTube initially fixed the issue, users had to enter highly specific keywords, like “Joe Rogan Trump interview,” to find the episode. Rogan argued that YouTube’s gatekeeping reflected an ideological stance, remarking, “They hate it because ideologically they’re opposed to the idea of him being more popular.” He suggested that major tech platforms, such as YouTube and Facebook, which hold significant influence, often push agendas that favor specific narratives, stating, “They didn’t like that this one was slipping away. And so they did something.” In a telling moment, Rogan noted the impact of the initial suppression, explaining how “the interactions…dropped off a cliff because people couldn’t find it.” He claimed that this caused viewers either to give up or settle for short clips, leading to a dip in views before the episode gained traction on Spotify and X. |
Since there's an issue with searching for this episode on YouTube here is the full podcast with Trump pic.twitter.com/sl2GTUaWdE
— Joe Rogan (@joerogan) October 29, 2024
From the Brownstone Institute
For the first time in 30 years, we have gone a long swath of time – since October 8-10 – since this service has chronicled the life of the Internet in real time.
Instances of censorship are growing to the point of normalization. Despite ongoing litigation and more public attention, mainstream social media has been more ferocious in recent months than ever before. Podcasters know for sure what will be instantly deleted and debate among themselves over content in gray areas. Some like Brownstone have given up on YouTube in favor of Rumble, sacrificing vast audiences if only to see their content survive to see the light of day.
It’s not always about being censored or not. Today’s algorithms include a range of tools that affect searchability and findability. For example, the Joe Rogan interview with Donald Trump racked up an astonishing 34 million views before YouTube and Google tweaked their search engines to make it hard to discover, while even presiding over a technical malfunction that disabled viewing for many people. Faced with this, Rogan went to the platform X to post all three hours.
Navigating this thicket of censorship and quasi-censorship has become part of the business model of alternative media.
Those are just the headline cases. Beneath the headlines, there are technical events taking place that are fundamentally affecting the ability of any historian even to look back and tell what is happening. Incredibly, the service Archive.org which has been around since 1994 has stopped taking images of content on all platforms. For the first time in 30 years, we have gone a long swath of time – since October 8-10 – since this service has chronicled the life of the Internet in real time.
As of this writing, we have no way to verify content that has been posted for three weeks of October leading to the days of the most contentious and consequential election of our lifetimes. Crucially, this is not about partisanship or ideological discrimination. No websites on the Internet are being archived in ways that are available to users. In effect, the whole memory of our main information system is just a big black hole right now.
The trouble on Archive.org began on October 8, 2024, when the service was suddenly hit with a massive Denial of Service attack (DDOS) that not only took down the service but introduced a level of failure that nearly took it out completely. Working around the clock, Archive.org came back as a read-only service where it stands today. However, you can only read content that was posted before the attack. The service has yet to resume any public display of mirroring of any sites on the Internet.
In other words, the only source on the entire World Wide Web that mirrors content in real time has been disabled. For the first time since the invention of the web browser itself, researchers have been robbed of the ability to compare past with future content, an action that is a staple of researchers looking into government and corporate actions.
It was using this service, for example, that enabled Brownstone researchers to discover precisely what the CDC had said about Plexiglas, filtration systems, mail-in ballots, and rental moratoriums. That content was all later scrubbed off the live Internet, so accessing archive copies was the only way we could know and verify what was true. It was the same with the World Health Organization and its disparagement of natural immunity which was later changed. We were able to document the shifting definitions thanks only to this tool which is now disabled.
What this means is the following: Any website can post anything today and take it down tomorrow and leave no record of what they posted unless some user somewhere happened to take a screenshot. Even then there is no way to verify its authenticity. The standard approach to know who said what and when is now gone. That is to say that the whole Internet is already being censored in real time so that during these crucial weeks, when vast swaths of the public fully expect foul play, anyone in the information industry can get away with anything and not get caught.
We know what you are thinking. Surely this DDOS attack was not a coincidence. The time was just too perfect. And maybe that is right. We just do not know. Does Archive.org suspect something along those lines? Here is what they say:
Last week, along with a DDOS attack and exposure of patron email addresses and encrypted passwords, the Internet Archive’s website javascript was defaced, leading us to bring the site down to access and improve our security. The stored data of the Internet Archive is safe and we are working on resuming services safely. This new reality requires heightened attention to cyber security and we are responding. We apologize for the impact of these library services being unavailable.
Deep state? As with all these things, there is no way to know, but the effort to blast away the ability of the Internet to have a verified history fits neatly into the stakeholder model of information distribution that has clearly been prioritized on a global level. The Declaration of the Future of the Internet makes that very clear: the Internet should be “governed through the multi-stakeholder approach, whereby governments and relevant authorities partner with academics, civil society, the private sector, technical community and others.” All of these stakeholders benefit from the ability to act online without leaving a trace.
To be sure, a librarian at Archive.org has written that “While the Wayback Machine has been in read-only mode, web crawling and archiving have continued. Those materials will be available via the Wayback Machine as services are secured.”
When? We do not know. Before the election? In five years? There might be some technical reasons but it might seem that if web crawling is continuing behind the scenes, as the note suggests, that too could be available in read-only mode now. It is not.
Disturbingly, this erasure of Internet memory is happening in more than one place. For many years, Google offered a cached version of the link you were seeking just below the live version. They have plenty of server space to enable that now, but no: that service is now completely gone. In fact, the Google cache service officially ended just a week or two before the Archive.org crash, at the end of September 2024.
Thus the two available tools for searching cached pages on the Internet disappeared within weeks of each other and within weeks of the November 5th election.
Other disturbing trends are also turning Internet search results increasingly into AI-controlled lists of establishment-approved narratives. The web standard used to be for search result rankings to be governed by user behavior, links, citations, and so forth. These were more or less organic metrics, based on an aggregation of data indicating how useful a search result was to Internet users. Put very simply, the more people found a search result useful, the higher it would rank. Google now uses very different metrics to rank search results, including what it considers “trusted sources” and other opaque, subjective determinations.
Furthermore, the most widely used service that once ranked websites based on traffic is now gone. That service was called Alexa. The company that created it was independent. Then one day in 1999, it was bought by Amazon. That seemed encouraging because Amazon was well-heeled. The acquisition seemed to codify the tool that everyone was using as a kind of metric of status on the web. It was common back in the day to take note of an article somewhere on the web and then look it up on Alexa to see its reach. If it was important, one would take notice, but if it was not, no one particularly cared.
This is how an entire generation of web technicians functioned. The system worked as well as one could possibly expect.
Then, in 2014, years after acquiring the ranking service Alexa, Amazon did a strange thing. It released its home assistant (and surveillance device) with the same name. Suddenly, everyone had them in their homes and would find out anything by saying “Hey Alexa.” Something seemed strange about Amazon naming its new product after an unrelated business it had acquired years earlier. No doubt there was some confusion caused by the naming overlap.
Here’s what happened next. In 2022, Amazon actively took down the web ranking tool. It didn’t sell it. It didn’t raise the prices. It didn’t do anything with it. It suddenly made it go completely dark.
No one could figure out why. It was the industry standard, and suddenly it was gone. Not sold, just blasted away. No longer could anyone figure out the traffic-based website rankings of anything without paying very high prices for hard-to-use proprietary products.
All of these data points that might seem unrelated when considered individually, are actually part of a long trajectory that has shifted our information landscape into unrecognizable territory. The Covid events of 2020-2023, with massive global censorship and propaganda efforts, greatly accelerated these trends.
One wonders if anyone will remember what it was once like. The hacking and hobbling of Archive.org underscores the point: there will be no more memory.
As of this writing, fully three weeks of web content have not been archived. What we are missing and what has changed is anyone’s guess. And we have no idea when the service will come back. It is entirely possible that it will not come back, that the only real history to which we can take recourse will be pre-October 8, 2024, the date on which everything changed.
The Internet was founded to be free and democratic. It will require herculean efforts at this point to restore that vision, because something else is quickly replacing it.
Authors
The Alberta Update: Recap of this week’s top provincial issues
Trump’s 19th-Century Solution to Fiscal Disaster
California may lose two more refineries, would have to rely on gas from abroad
Multi-million dollar drug seizure in southwest Edmonton
Why Don’t Men Go To University Any More?
Indigenous Catholic Priest questions “The murder of 215 Indigenous Children” at Kamloops Indian Residential School
Priming The NHL Coaching Carousel For Another Spin
-
Alberta2 days agoHeavy-duty truckers welcome new ‘natural gas highway’ in Alberta
-
Alberta2 days agoAlberta Bill of Rights Amendment, Bill 24 – Stronger protections for personal rights
-
Business1 day agoPremiers fight to lower gas taxes as Trudeau hikes pump costs
-
MAiD2 days agoQuebec set to take euthanasia requests in advance, violating federal law
-
Economy2 days agoOne Solution to Canada’s Housing Crisis: Move. Toronto loses nearly half million people to more affordable locations
-
Economy2 days agoGas prices plummet in BC thanks to TMX pipeline expansion
-
Alberta2 days agoAnother Blow To The Carbon Tax
-
Business2 days agoTrudeau government spends millions producing podcasts