Connect with us

Internet

Meta’s “Threat to Democracy” gets federal ad dollars

Published

11 minute read

The Opposition with Dan Knight

 

Dan Knight

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.

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

Business

Trump to Counter Foreign Social Media Censorship Demands and Defend Free Speech Online

Published on

logo
President Donald Trump has signed a new directive aimed at protecting American businesses from what his administration describes as “overseas extortion.” The directive renews efforts to challenge digital services taxes (DSTs) imposed by foreign governments, which the administration argues unfairly target American companies operating internationally and promote online censorship.
“President Trump will not allow foreign governments to appropriate America’s tax base for their own benefit,” the White House stated, underscoring its commitment to defending US economic interests.
The memorandum directs the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to reopen investigations into DSTs under Section 301, revisiting cases first launched during President Trump’s first term.
Additionally, it calls for scrutiny of other nations implementing DSTs that allegedly discriminate against American companies.
The administration also plans to evaluate European Union and United Kingdom policies that could push US businesses toward practices that, according to the memorandum, undermine free speech or contribute to censorship.
Key regulations under review include the European Union’s Digital Markets Act and Digital Services Act, which dictate how American firms interact with consumers in the region. The White House has signaled potential countermeasures, including tariffs if these regulations are deemed harmful to US business interests.
The memorandum asserts that foreign governments have imposed DSTs as a way to extract revenue from successful American firms rather than fostering economic growth within their own countries. “America’s economy will not be a source of revenue for countries that have failed to cultivate economic success of their own,” the administration declared.
The White House estimates that billions of dollars could be siphoned from US companies annually through these taxes, further arguing that such financial burdens stifle American innovation and reduce global economic competitiveness.
The directive highlights the United States’ digital economy, which has outpaced the total GDP of several developed nations, including Australia and Canada.
The administration attributes this dominance to American technology companies and the entrepreneurial spirit that fuels them.
Continue Reading

Censorship Industrial Complex

Germany’s Shocking War on Online Speech: Armed Police Raids for Online “Insults,” “Hate Speech,” and “Misinformation”

Published on

logo

By

A shocking discussion on CBS News’ 60 Minutes has highlighted the stark limits of online speech in Germany, where oppressive scenes once thought to be relegated to history and dystopian fiction, show law enforcement has been conducting pre-dawn raids and confiscating electronics from individuals accused of posting content deemed as “hate speech.”
In typical Orwellian fashion, despite these speech raids, officials insist that free speech still exists.
Dr. Matthäus Fink joined host Sharyn Alfonsi to explain how these laws operate and how those targeted by authorities typically react. According to Fink, most individuals are initially shocked when police confront them over online posts.
60 Minutes followed armed police on early morning raids, confiscating devices of people accused of online “hate speech.”
“They say — in Germany we say, ‘Das wird man ja wohl noch sagen dürfen,’”(You should still be allowed to say that) Fink remarked, illustrating the disbelief many express when they realize their statements can result in legal action. He noted that many Germans assume they are protected by free speech laws but learn too late that specific kinds of speech are punishable.
Alfonsi delved deeper, questioning the scope of these restrictions. Beyond banning swastika imagery and Holocaust denial, Fink pointed out that publicly insulting someone is also a criminal offense.
“And it’s a crime to insult them online as well?” Alfonsi asked.
Fink affirmed that online insults carry even steeper penalties than face-to-face insults. “The fine could be even higher if you insult someone in the internet,” he elaborated. “Because in internet, it stays there. If we are talking face to face, you insult me, I insult you, OK. Finish. But if you’re in the internet, if I insult you or a politician…”
Watch the video here.
The segment aired shortly after Vice President JD Vance spoke in Munich, warning about the dangers of European nations suppressing free speech. Vance emphasized that democracy cannot function without the fundamental right to express opinions.
“Democracy rests on the sacred principle that the voice of the people matters. There’s no room for firewalls,” Vance argued. “You either uphold the principle or you don’t.”
In response to the 60 Minutes feature, Vance posted: “Insulting someone is not a crime, and criminalizing speech is going to put real strain on European-US relationships.” He added: “This is Orwellian, and everyone in Europe and the US must reject this lunacy.”
You subscribe to Reclaim The Net because you value 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.
Continue Reading

Trending

X