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.
Internet
US government gave $22 million to nonprofit teaching teens about sex toys: report

From LifeSiteNews
The Center for Innovative Public Health Research’s website suggests teenage girls make their ‘own decisions’ about sex and not let their parents know if they don’t want to.
For almost a decade, the U.S. government funded a group that actively works to teach kids how to use sex toys and then keep them hidden from their parents to the tune of $22 million.
According to investigative reporter Hannah Grossman at the Manhattan Institute, The Center for Innovative Public Health Research (CIPHR) has been educating minors about sex toys with public funds.
Records show that the millions given to the group since 2016, according to its website, go toward “health education programs” that “promote positive human development.”
However, the actual contents of the programs, as can be seen from comments from CIPHR CEO Michele Ybarra, seem to suggest that its idea of “human” development is skewed toward radical sex education doctrine.
In 2017, CIPHR launched Girl2Girl, which is funded by federal money to promote “sex-ed program just for teen girls who are into girls.” Its website lets users, who are girls between ages 14 and 16, sign up for “daily text messages … about things like sex with girls and boys.”
The actual content of some of the messages is very concerning. Its website notes that some of the texts talk about “lube and sex toys” as well as “the different types of sex and ways to increase pleasure.”
The website actively calls upon teenage girls to make their “own decisions” and not let their parents know if they don’t want to.
Grossman shared a video clip on X of Ybarra explaining how they educate minors about the use of “sex toys” and dealing with their parents if they are found out.
The clip, from a 2022 Brown University webinar, shows Ybarra telling researchers how to prepare “young person(s)” for her research.
She said if they are doing “focus groups,” she will ask them, “Okay, so what happens if somebody comes into the room and sees words like penis and sex toys on your screen — on your computer screen or on your phone? What if it’s your mom?’”
In 2023, CIPHR launched Transcendent Health, which is a sex-education program for minors who are gender confused. This initiative received $1.3 million of federal grant money that expired last month.
Grossman observed that the federal government “should not fund programs that send sexually explicit messages to minors and encourage them to conceal these communications from parents.”
She noted that in order to protect children and “prevent further harm,” U.S. President Donald Trump’s Department of Health and Human Services “should immediately cancel CIPHR’s active contract and deny its future grant applications.”
“By doing so, the Trump administration can send a clear message: Taxpayers will no longer foot the bill for perverted ‘research’ projects,” she noted.
The Trump administration has thus far, through the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), exposed billions in government waste and fraud. Many such uses of taxpayer dollars are currently under review by the administration, including pro-abortion and pro-censorship activity through USAID, “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and neo-Marxist class warfare propaganda” through the National Science Foundation, and billions to left-wing “green energy” nonprofits through the Environmental Protection Agency.
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.
|
-
Business2 days ago
Stocks soar after Trump suspends tariffs
-
COVID-192 days ago
Biden Admin concealed report on earliest COVID cases from 2019
-
Business2 days ago
Scott Bessent Says Trump’s Goal Was Always To Get Trading Partners To Table After Major Pause Announcement
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
Researchers Link China’s Intelligence and Elite Influence Arms to B.C. Government, Liberal Party, and Trudeau-Appointed Senator
-
Business1 day ago
Timeline: Panama Canal Politics, Policy, and Tensions
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
RCMP memo warns of Chinese interference on Canadian university campuses to affect election
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
The status quo in Canadian politics isn’t sustainable for national unity
-
COVID-191 day ago
Fauci, top COVID officials have criminal referral requests filed against them in 7 states