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
Welcome to Britain, Where Critical WhatsApp Messages Are a Police Matter

By
“It was just unfathomable to me that things had escalated to this degree,”
“We’d never used abusive or threatening language, even in private.”
You’d think that in Britain, the worst thing that could happen to you after sending a few critical WhatsApp messages would be a passive-aggressive reply or, at most, a snooty whisper campaign. What you probably wouldn’t expect is to have six police officers show up on your doorstep like they’re hunting down a cartel. But that’s precisely what happened to Maxie Allen and Rosalind Levine — two parents whose great offense was asking some mildly inconvenient questions about how their daughter’s school planned to replace its retiring principal.
This is not an episode of Black Mirror. This is Borehamwood, Hertfordshire, 2025. And the parents in question—Maxie Allen, a Times Radio producer, and Rosalind Levine, 46, a mother of two—had the gall to inquire, via WhatsApp no less, whether Cowley Hill Primary School was being entirely above board in appointing a new principal.
What happened next should make everyone in Britain pause and consider just how overreaching their government has become. Because in the time it takes to send a meme about the school’s bake sale, you too could be staring down the barrel of a “malicious communications” charge.
The trouble started in May, shortly after the school’s principal retired. Instead of the usual round of polite emails, clumsy PowerPoints, and dreary Q&A sessions, there was… silence. Maxie Allen, who had once served as a school governor—so presumably knows his way around a budget meeting—asked the unthinkable: when was the recruitment process going to be opened up?
A fair question, right? Not in Borehamwood, apparently. The school responded not with answers, but with a sort of preemptive nuclear strike.
Jackie Spriggs, the chair of governors, issued a public warning about “inflammatory and defamatory” social media posts and hinted at disciplinary action for those who dared to cause “disharmony.” One imagines this word being uttered in the tone of a Bond villain stroking a white cat.
|
![]() |
Parents Allen and Levine were questioned by police over their WhatsApp messages. |
For the crime of “casting aspersions,” Allen and Levine were promptly banned from the school premises. That meant no parents’ evening, no Christmas concert, no chance to speak face-to-face about the specific needs of their daughter Sascha, who—just to add to the bleakness of it all—has epilepsy and is registered disabled.
So what do you do when the school shuts its doors in your face? You send emails. Lots of them. You try to get answers. And if that fails, you might—just might—vent a little on WhatsApp.
But apparently, that was enough to earn the label of harassers. Not in the figurative, overly sensitive, “Karen’s upset again” sense. No, this was the actual, legal, possibly-prison kind of harassment.
Then came January 29. Rosalind was at home sorting toys for charity—presumably a heinous act in today’s climate—when she opened the door to what can only be described as a low-budget reboot of Line of Duty. Six officers. Two cars. A van. All to arrest two middle-aged parents whose biggest vice appears to be stubborn curiosity.
“I saw six police officers standing there,” she said. “My first thought was that Sascha was dead.”
Instead, it was the prelude to an 11-hour ordeal in a police cell. Eleven hours. That’s enough time to commit actual crimes, be tried, be sentenced, and still get home in time for MasterChef.
Allen called the experience “dystopian,” and, for once, the word isn’t hyperbole. “It was just unfathomable to me that things had escalated to this degree,” he said. “We’d never used abusive or threatening language, even in private.”
Worse still, they were never even told which communications were being investigated. It’s like being detained by police for “vibes.”
One of the many delightful ironies here is that the school accused them of causing a “nuisance on school property,” despite the fact that neither of them had set foot on said property in six months.
Now, in the school’s defense—such as it is—they claim they went to the police because the sheer volume of correspondence and social media posts had become “upsetting.” Which raises an important question: when did being “upsetting” become a police matter?
What we’re witnessing is not a breakdown in communication, but a full-blown bureaucratic tantrum. Instead of engaging with concerned parents, Cowley Hill’s leadership took the nuclear option: drag them out in cuffs and let the police deal with it.
Hertfordshire Constabulary, apparently mistaking Borehamwood for Basra, decided this was a perfectly normal use of resources. “The number of officers was necessary,” said a spokesman, “to secure electronic devices and care for children at the address.”
Right. Nothing says “childcare” like watching your mom get led away in handcuffs while your toddler hides in the corner, traumatized.
After five weeks—five weeks of real police time, in a country where burglaries are basically a form of inheritance transfer—the whole thing was quietly dropped. Insufficient evidence. No charges. Not even a slap on the wrist.
So here we are. A story about a couple who dared to question how a public school was run, and ended up locked in a cell, banned from the school play, and smeared with criminal accusations for trying to advocate for their disabled child.
This is Britain in 2025. A place where public institutions behave like paranoid cults and the police are deployed like private security firms for anyone with a bruised ego. All while the rest of the population is left wondering how many other WhatsApp groups are one message away from a dawn raid.
Because if this is what happens when you ask a few inconvenient questions, what’s next? Fingerprinting people for liking the wrong Facebook post? Tactical units sent in for sarcastic TripAdvisor reviews?
It’s a warning. Ask the wrong question, speak out of turn, and you too may get a visit from half the local police force.
|
|
Reclaim The Net values your free speech and privacy. Each issue we publish is a commitment to defend these critical rights, providing insights and actionable information to protect and promote liberty in the digital age.
Despite our wide readership, less than 0.2% of our readers contribute financially. With your support, we can do more than just continue; we can amplify voices that are often suppressed and spread the word about the urgent issues of censorship and surveillance. Consider making a modest donation — just $5, or whatever amount you can afford. Your contribution will empower us to reach more people, educate them about these pressing issues, and engage them in our collective cause. Thank you for considering a contribution. Each donation not only supports our operations but also strengthens our efforts to challenge injustices and advocate for those who cannot speak out. Thank you.
|
Business
Vice President Vance expects framework of TikTok deal by April 5

MxM News
Quick Hit:
Vice President JD Vance expects a framework agreement to resolve TikTok’s ownership by April 5, as the Biden-era law requiring its Chinese owner, ByteDance, to sell the app or face a ban looms. President Donald Trump had previously delayed enforcement of the law, allowing more time for negotiations. The White House is in discussions with multiple potential buyers to establish an American-owned version of the social media platform.
Key Details:
-
Vice President Vance stated that a high-level agreement will likely be reached that meets national security concerns while creating a U.S.-based TikTok enterprise.
-
President Trump signed an executive order in January, delaying the enforcement of a law requiring ByteDance to sell TikTok or face a ban.
-
The White House is engaged with four interested groups in potential acquisition talks.
Diving Deeper:
The fate of TikTok in the U.S. has been a subject of intense debate due to concerns over data security and its ties to the Chinese Communist Party through ByteDance. The law, originally passed under the Biden administration, sought to force the sale of the app due to fears that American user data could be accessed by the Chinese government. However, after taking office, President Trump extended the enforcement deadline by 75 days, giving room for negotiations.
Vice President Vance, speaking to NBC News aboard Air Force Two, expressed confidence that an agreement will be reached by April 5, though some details may still need to be finalized afterward. He and national security adviser Michael Waltz have been leading efforts to facilitate a sale that would address national security concerns while preserving TikTok’s massive American user base.
President Trump revealed last weekend that his administration is in talks with four different groups interested in acquiring the app. While the specifics of these negotiations remain undisclosed, the administration has made it clear that TikTok must operate as a distinct American entity to remain in the U.S. market.
As the deadline approaches, ByteDance has not publicly commented on the ongoing discussions. However, with bipartisan concerns over the influence of the Chinese Communist Party on U.S. technology platforms, the expectation is that any deal will include significant safeguards to prevent foreign interference in the app’s operations.
The coming weeks will determine whether a sale materializes or if further action will be needed to enforce the law. Either way, the Trump administration has signaled its commitment to ensuring that TikTok is no longer under the control of a hostile foreign adversary.
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
WEF video shows Mark Carney pushing financial ‘revolution’ based on ‘net zero’ goals
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
Three cheers for Poilievre’s alcohol tax cut
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
MORE OF THE SAME: Mark Carney Admits He Will Not Repeal the Liberal’s Bill C-69 – The ‘No Pipelines’ Bill
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
‘Coordinated and Alarming’: Allegations of Chinese Voter Suppression in 2021 Race That Flipped Toronto Riding to Liberals and Paul Chiang
-
Break The Needle2 days ago
Why psychedelic therapy is stuck in the waiting room
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
Don’t let the Liberals fool you on electric cars
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
‘I’m Cautiously Optimistic’: Doug Ford Strongly Recommends Canada ‘Not To Retaliate’ Against Trump’s Tariffs
-
Automotive2 days ago
Trump Must Act to Halt the Tesla Terror Campaign