September 5, 2023 • 53 mins
Ever wondered about the intersection of social media and privacy? How do corporations like Facebook manage our data, and what does it mean for our democratic freedoms? Join This Canadian Thinks as we peel back the layers of the digital landscape and uncover shocking revelations about the abuse of our online information. From the dark history of data collection to the controversial role of government in controlling social media platforms, this episode is a rollercoaster ride through the minefield of privacy concerns in the digital age.
Did you know that your online information has been weaponized against you? That Facebook cooperated with global governments during the pandemic, feeding them data you never intended to share? We dive into this contentious issue, questioning the ethical implications of such actions. Our debate extends to the use of shame and division as tools for championing inclusion, especially regarding vaccination policies. Whose rights win in this battle – individual or public health?
As we approach the end of this thrilling episode, we shed light on Facebook’s impact on Canadian democracy. The profit-driven motives of such corporations threaten our journalistic integrity and democratic freedoms. And just when you think it can't get any more riveting, we delve into the potential consequences of regulating social media platforms, using the Australian government’s attempts to impose a news media bargaining law as a case study. So, buckle up for an episode that promises to enlighten and engage in equal measure.
(No Guest)
Politically discordant, counter culture clothing for the discerning civil disobedient.
Disclaimer: This post contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase, I may receive a commission at no extra cost to you.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Whether we agree or agree to disagree, everybody's
got an opinion, and I'm about togive you mine.
So sit back, relax, buckle upand try not to get offended.
Welcome to This Canadian Thinks.
It's called a profile for areason.
It used to take a roomcomprised of a great many people
(00:21):
to create a workup that wouldthen result in a handful of
higher-up experts establishing abaseline consensus on who you
are, what you like, where youfrequent, what you buy or
fascinate over.
It was reserved for serialkillers and abductionists things
of that nature mostly becauseit was laborious and costly, and
let's not forget that it wouldbe a violation of the rights of
(00:41):
the average everyday citizen.
With the advent of the internetand the expansion of its
availability to more and morepeople, it was only a matter of
time before the information youwillingly input would eventually
pile up into a folder along theway.
Not unlike the dossier theprofile department would have
used to hold the relevantfindings and information
regarding the subject to whichthey were affixing their gaze.
(01:02):
This information has alwaysbeen known to have the ability
to be used for malicious intent,even in its relatively
innocuous state of order form.
From personal login information, plenty of technology, experts,
teachers and parents commentedearly on that anything you put
on the internet stays there.
You cannot erase it or removeit in any way.
It exists in some pocket of thecomplex zeros and ones used to
(01:25):
explain the content to thedigital apparatus and waits, as
though having a life of its own,waiting for the moment where it
will be called back from itscompressed state to once again
exist as the information that itonce was and still remains.
Be careful, they would say,protect yourself and trust that
no one is who they say they are.
Those warnings are all but mutenow, in the day and age in
(01:47):
which we reside, ushered in bythe social media era, Social
media is making us unsocial.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
Social media is killing relationships.
Social media is replacingexperiences.
Social media has changed theway we live our lives, from the
way we get news to the way weinteract with loved ones.
It's everywhere, it's powerfuland it's growing.
Speaker 1 (02:20):
It began innocently enough, the first being MySpace.
Myspace was an online communitywhere you were given a basic
website template that you couldpersonalize using codes and
plugins.
It was more about creating yourown individual website and not
as much about the actualinteraction between the websites
themselves.
It was great for networkingbands, models and other
(02:40):
celebrity personas, but itfizzled out once Facebook
entered the fray, where MySpacewas more about a unique and
individual space.
Facebook was about a communityplatform that was shared by
everyone, with the end goalbeing the ability for
interaction.
Instead of just hearing aboutsomeone's recent trip through a
mutual acquaintance or by localgossip, that person could post
(03:01):
photos and videos directly foryou to envy while scrolling
through your news feed instead,without communicating with
anyone else or even leaving thehouse.
It made keeping up with theJones's take on a whole new
meaning.
Speaker 3 (03:13):
MySpace is another case where a company just blew
it.
Facebook had no chance to win.
We should not have won themarket.
The network effects at MySpacewere so powerful.
The only reason we won wasbecause of the gross
incompetence of MySpacesystematically over a period of
many years.
Speaker 1 (03:28):
It was the first time you were asked to provide the
sheer amount of informationabout yourself that Facebook
required as well.
They didn't necessarily ask youto do it, it was simply part of
the process.
In the early days, the metadatathat was created during the
interaction with the platformwas priceless.
Only the tech savvy knew whatits exploitative potential was,
and at the time, there were norules or regulations stating
(03:49):
that they weren't allowed topass that information along to
third-party organizations, whichthey, of course, were doing for
a fee.
Naturally, there weren't a lotof ads back then, which is
telling the sheer incomegenerated off the sale of that
metadata being lost under newprivacy requirements met.
Facebook had to make up thedifference elsewhere at that
point.
That's when they turned theiralgorithms on us and used our
(04:10):
own metadata to manipulate theway we interacted with
advertisers.
Instead of just outrightselling it to them, using the
things we'd given themvoluntarily against us, we'd
written our own profiles forfree, obligingly filling in form
after form and liking andsharing enough that they knew
what to offer us, how to offerit to us and what it would take
to keep us interacting,distracted and entertained,
(04:33):
oblivious to the real-worldissues we face, and now
inundated with advertisementsand sponsored content.
Speaker 4 (04:39):
Besides, Fox Business has obtained internal
communications between the WhiteHouse and Facebook during the
height of the pandemic, and someof these communications that we
have obtained we cannot err onTV.
They need to be bleeped.
The big takeaway here WhiteHouse officials had an
F-bomb-riddled face-off withFacebook, demanding they hand
(05:02):
over more data on its users andasking for special tools to
target users, all in an effortto get more shots in arms.
President Biden's then-digitaldirector, rob Flaherty, asking
Facebook if government agenciescould have access to more
targeting tools.
Asking quote since it's aglobal pandemic, can we give
agencies access to targetingparameters that they normally
(05:24):
wouldn't be able to?
This pandemic power strugglehit its peak as Flaherty and the
White House's senior advisorfor the COVID response, andy
Slavitt, joined Biden's digitaldirector on a call where
Facebook employees were beratedby the White House for not
turning over more data.
Flaherty's saying on the call,quote I feel like we're running
around in circles.
Some partners give us lots ofinformation, some partners tell
(05:47):
us to F right off.
This feels like we're chasingour tails.
If you don't want to giveinformation, just say that.
My dream for Facebook to playball it's about will we get out
of this effing mess?
I'm not doubting that you weresincerely trying to solve this
problem in good faith.
I'm doubting that you weretelling us everything.
After this blow up, facebookdelivered a data dump to the
White House.
(06:07):
Just days later, in an emailobtained by Fox, facebook's then
VP of Global Affairs, nickClegg, emails his team with an
update saying this he, meaningSlavitt, was appreciative of the
data we sent through on Fridayand confirmed that Rob Flaherty
had said they have neverreceived so much data from us
before.
The White House did not respondto our request for comment.
(06:29):
Meta tells Fox what they handedover was from CrowdTangle,
meta's tool that analyzes publiccontent on its platform,
something the company haspublicly acknowledged they
shared with the White House.
But these discussionscontradict what the White House
said at the time, that theirengagement with social media
companies was purely flaggingmisinformation publicly
(06:50):
available on the site.
These communications show theywanted a whole lot more from
Facebook and were very angrywhen they didn't get it.
Speaker 1 (06:59):
It was the perfect weapon to deliver the messaging
required to administer thegovernment's pandemic response.
While beneficial in having theability to communicate with
others, it became an echochamber pretty quickly once the
tech companies understood moreabout what keeps you engaged
with their platforms, which istheir end goal not the
betterment of your health orwell-being or your relationships
with other people or even humanprogress, simply that you
(07:21):
interact with their platform forthe most amount of time
possible.
The longer you stay away, themore notifications they send you
, until they finally send yousomething you interact with or
you log in of your own accord.
Try it, you'll see for yourself.
Avoid Facebook for as long asyou're able.
Watch the increasing number ofnotifications for yourself.
Personally, I have thenotifications turned off.
Now I log in to see what'sgoing on there instead of
(07:43):
suffering the increasingdistractions.
Speaker 5 (07:46):
I just want to be a part of your life.
Speaker 6 (07:49):
What am I supposed to do?
You won't answer my calls.
You changed your number.
I mean I'm not going to beignored.
Speaker 1 (07:54):
It's easy to forget that it's a profile, though, to
get lost and give away moreinformation than we should be
comfortable with.
It's made even more difficultby little mind tricks that they
use to their advantage, likewhen they allege that only a
genius can answer all 15questions on a quiz or something
to that effect.
Everyone wants to think they'resmarter than everyone else, so
it's tempting to see how youactually stack up, but have you
(08:14):
ever noticed how the questionsaren't really that difficult or
genius level?
I mean, I'm not saying that youyourself, dear listener, are
not intellectually sound andfully capable, but you should be
able to admit that none of theaforementioned quizzes contain
questions anything close to thatwhich may require answers that
only a genius or an expert inthe field might provide.
It's a sham, a scam, aboondoggle, and yet countless
(08:38):
people fall victim every day andthey wonder how come their
accounts are always being hacked.
Trust me, it's not smart tointeract with that type of
content.
You shouldn't need to be agenius to figure that out.
Speaker 7 (08:50):
It is my strong conviction that every man, woman
and child has the right to adecent life, do they not?
A life free of struggles andhardship, free of a bad
complexion, free of cloggedchakras and free of having to
read a single science textbook.
Our competitor believes youshould have to pay premium
prices for snake oil.
Speaker 1 (09:12):
It was only a matter of time before Facebook would
grow to be such a monolith thatit could become a dangerous tool
in the wrong hands.
Problem is we didn't have anycontrol over who created it.
We could only concern ourselveswith the creation as it was
available to us under thesupervision of Mark Zuckerberg.
It was his baby.
We didn't task him withcreating it.
That's not to say thatZuckerberg is evil although many
(09:33):
would contend that he is butrather that we can't vet the
people who give us the things weend up integrating into our
everyday lives, any more than wecan legislate what people can
do in their spare time, such asthe case with Facebook,
originally created by a hornycollege student trying to
establish a means by which tomeet women, and having morph
considerably from there intowhat it is today, even
(09:54):
Zuckerberg couldn't haveimagined what it would become
back then.
Nor do any of us know what itwill further become in the
future.
However, facebook has shown itsuses or, perhaps more
appropriately, its flaws interms of manipulation and
exploitation in regards to itsuser base.
Otherwise, why was it necessaryto legislate and protect the
metadata once it was discoveredhow Facebook was using the
(10:15):
information in the past.
Once Facebook's name seemed tobecome a bit tarnished by their
one-sided ideologies and thequestionable use of their users'
personal information, and inanticipation of a new virtual
reality version of the internet,facebook and its subsidiary
Instagram, amalgamated under theoperating name of Meta.
This rebranding was necessaryto avoid the growing scrutiny at
(10:38):
the highest levels of theZuckerberg machine of the
actions of those found to beemployed there, like the extra
protection offered by being acorporation instead of a sole
proprietor, a mean by which toshield Zuckerberg and his most
loyal from liabilities that maysurface in the future.
Thank you for watching.
Speaker 8 (10:54):
I've been thinking a lot about our identity as we
begin this next chapter.
Facebook is one of the mostused products in the history of
the world.
It is an iconic social mediabrand, but increasingly, it just
doesn't encompass everythingthat we do Instagram, whatsapp,
(11:15):
messenger, quest, now Horizon,nazarene and more.
Building our social media appswill always be an important
focus for us, but right now, ourbrand is so tightly linked to
one product that it can'tpossibly represent everything
that we're doing today, letalone in the future Over time.
(11:36):
I hope that we are seen as ametaverse company and I want to
anchor our work and our identityon what we are building towards
.
We just announced that we aremaking a fundamental change to
our company.
We're now looking at andreporting on our business as two
different segments One for ourfamily of apps and one for our
(11:56):
work on future platforms, and,as part of this, it is time for
us to adopt a new company brandto encompass everything that we
do To reflect who we are andwhat we hope to build.
I am proud to announce that,starting today, our company is
now meta.
Speaker 1 (12:18):
That still doesn't change the fact that meta, as
it's now known, was complicitnot only in suppressing opposing
viewpoints, but in promotingdisinformation, in some cases
working in direct conjunctionwith governments worldwide,
masquerading as fact that whichwas not proven through any
outside independent testing orfull or even majority consensus
amongst the medical community.
(12:39):
Anything contrary to the companyline was disregarded, fact
checked and marked to bedisregarded by meta.
Employees hired to do exactlythat Not experts, not scientists
, not professionals, not eveneducators or authorities, simply
employees that were told whatto do and then trained how to do
it.
Then meta applied thealgorithms necessary to
(12:59):
automatically filter a certainset of prescribed content out,
and the employees then dealtwith user disagreements or
concerns when they arose,proving only that meta had
become a very useful propagandatool.
Indeed, so long as you agreewith the same viewpoints and
agendas as the people in chargeof meta, then you'll find your
safe space at Facebook andInstagram.
If not, then you'll be doxxedand your profile will be
(13:21):
weaponized against you by thosethat do.
Don't think for a second thatgovernments around the globe did
not take notice of this.
Speaker 9 (13:28):
My name's Landon.
I've been wanting to work atFacebook for as long as I can
remember.
Back in 2020, they had no jobopenings available here, except
for the role of a fact checker.
You know, I took the jobthought I was just going to be
scrolling, you know, my feed andjust keeping people honest, but
it turns out that is not thecase at all.
(13:49):
What's the best way to describeit?
Basically, it's only certainspecific information that they
like me.
Fact checking.
It's kind of complicatedactually.
It's pretty simple really, butPerfect.
Example right here we got acouple in front of a house new
home owners.
Well, have we fact checked that?
Did you talk to the bank?
Do they have a mortgage?
If so, you're not homeownersFact checked removed.
(14:09):
Remember, like back in collegewhen we all took that class
called critical thinking andthey would just put kind of all
the ideas in public and we wouldkind of choose which ones were
best using our brains.
We kind of got rid of all thaton the college campuses and
replaced it with, you know, safespaces and stuff like that, and
, you know, social media.
Fact checking is just thenatural progression of that.
Speaker 1 (14:33):
As more social media platforms begin to attempt to
fill the void left by theintolerance of those operating
meta, the resulting onlinecommunities become smaller cells
and more acutely focused echochambers themselves Contrary
opinion all but reserved fortrolling accounts.
On a differently alignedplatform, the debate and back
and forth required to find atolerant and acceptable position
(14:54):
on any number of topicsdisappears.
At that point when Facebookonce pioneered the way people
saw and interacted with oneanother, meta is now driving out
oppositional voices in favor ofa rather hollow take on
inclusion and equity.
Sound familiar?
It should.
It's the same formula used byprogressive governments globally
.
Speaker 10 (15:14):
You want to keep more of the money you earn.
I'm afraid that's very selfish.
We shall want to tax that away.
You want to own shares in yourfirm.
We can't have that.
The state has to own your firm.
You want to choose where tosend your children to school.
That's very divisive.
You'll send your child where wetell you.
(15:38):
Socialists don't like ordinarypeople choosing, or they might
not choose, socialism.
Speaker 1 (15:45):
It's surprising to me how progressives tend to
champion inclusion, usingdivision and shame, seemingly
expecting everything andeveryone they hate to love them,
in spite of the progressive'srevulsion of them touting the
line that everyone matters andeveryone is a valuable human
being.
Until you aren't, until youdon't think or believe the same
things they do, until youdisagree with their agenda or
(16:06):
second guess their motives, thenyou're less than human,
deserving of nothing beyond allhope or compassion, not even
worthy of being part of thecommunity or receiving medical
treatment.
Such was the case during thepandemic.
There were more than a fewpoliticians clamoring for people
who didn't get vaccinated to bebarred from medical care.
Should they end up with COVID,cheered on by a terrified voter
(16:27):
base desperate for a sense ofnormalcy, as punishment for
choosing to remain unvaccinatedexcept, just like you?
Their taxes go to paying forhealth care hospitals, nurses,
doctors, treatments, thevaccines that some people were
so proud to take, also taxpayerfunded.
The unvaccinated have as muchright to care as those who made
the decision to get vaccinated.
(16:48):
They've paid for it just thesame.
Would the government provide arefund for those who were
refused the services they havealready paid for?
After all, we are expected toaccept that we pay all the time
so that when it's our time toreceive medical attention, we
don't pay more out of pocketthan the taxes we have already
supplied up to that point.
When the time comes, whensomeone needs medical care, it's
(17:10):
too late to debate politics orpersonal choices.
Speaker 11 (17:14):
The community that faced the most restrictions on
their freedoms in the last yearwere those who made a choice not
to be vaccinated.
I don't think I've everexperienced a situation in my
lifetime where a person wasfired from their job or not
allowed to watch their kids playhockey, or not allowed to go
(17:34):
visit a loved one in long-termcare or hospital, or not allowed
to go get on a plane to eithergo across the country to see
family or even travel across theborder.
So they have been the mostdiscriminated against group that
I've ever witnessed in mylifetime.
That's a pretty extreme levelof discrimination that we have
seen.
I don't take away any of thediscrimination that I've seen in
(17:55):
those other groups that youmentioned, but this has been an
extraordinary time in the lastyear in particular, and I want
people to know that I find thatunacceptable, that we are not
going to create a segregatedsociety on the basis of a
medical choice.
Speaker 1 (18:12):
To say the health community was in support during
the pandemic is to believewhatever your local state
broadcaster tells you withoutquestion or further
investigation, which is adangerous line to tread, for
every doctor or health officialthat said one thing about the
virus, there is another thatwould refute it.
There was, and still is, simplyno accord when it comes to
COVID-19.
Its risk, its means or itsprevention.
(18:35):
The facts are, there are alwaysgoing to be illnesses and
dangers to the population.
It isn't the government's jobto keep you unexposed to those
dangers, but rather to deal withthe results of them.
You could jump out of a planeand your parachute doesn't open,
causing you to plummet to yourdeath.
Do we, then, outlaw skydiving asa means of prevention?
Free choice and freedom ingeneral means you are free to
(18:59):
make your own choices based onthe information you are given.
Not that the government orcompanies such as META should
make that decision for you,certainly not that they would
make those decisions for youbased on things they think might
happen, especially when theirresponses are based on erroneous
computer modeling that neverresulted in the estimated
outcomes in the first place.
The government's job is to makesure that we, the people, have
(19:21):
all the information possible tomake the best decisions for
ourselves in our particular andindividual situations, even if
it means embracing the samemeans by which to do so as their
fellow citizens, working withsocial media providers to ensure
that the tenets of democracyand freedom are equally applied
to them.
In providing a place fordialogue in the spirit of debate
and open conversation, notagainst or in tandem to a mutual
(19:44):
end not befitting the good ofthe people, such as when they
lockstep in propaganda provision.
Speaker 12 (19:50):
Three years ago started off kind of the COVID
response with the 15 days toslow the spread.
And yet here we are, threeyears later and they are still
clinging to some of these failedpolicies.
You've seen things like the VAXmandate for foreign travelers.
They're doing other things totry to do, but if you look at a
(20:12):
lot of the problems that we'refacing right now, if you look at
the inflation that we've seen,which has been devastating, if
you look at the spike ininterest rates, which has had a
huge impact on businesses and onhome purchasing, if you look at
even what's going on with thesebanks and this banking issue.
(20:32):
Those banks were operating withzero interest rates.
They were doing low bonds withrelatively low yield, but the
time was good because theinterest rates were zero.
And then they've now got caughtbecause the rates are spiking
and those investments are nolonger good investments.
You look at our workforce andlook, florida has bucked this in
(20:53):
many respects, but theworkforce in the United States,
once the policies went intoeffect, once all the spending
started happening, many peoplejust dropped out of the
workforce because of theperverse incentives that were
done, where you're basicallypaying people to drop out of the
workforce effectively and howdo you get them back?
(21:15):
Some have come back, but notall, not even close.
We've seen major supply chainproblems over the last three
years.
We've seen huge problems withmental health over the last
three years, especially instates that lock the kids out of
school for so long.
That is not the way you treatyoung people, and of course,
(21:35):
florida is an exception, butyou've seen historic education
declines in terms of theeducation performance.
And so we're here looking atthis three years out.
It's just important to say theexperts that designed these
policies and that were hectoringeverybody they were wrong about
(21:57):
almost everything.
Speaker 1 (22:00):
Government should never be in a position to
dictate if you can operate yourbusiness, restrict your
movements or usurp yourfundamental personal rights in a
free society, regardless of theTrojan horse they use to
present it, unless it's deemedto be illegal.
Of course, it's illegal to do alot of things.
It doesn't stop them fromhappening, though.
People still murder, drive atexcessive speed, intoxicated.
(22:20):
Even Many people are well awareof the dangers of smoking, and
yet they still smoke, as much asyou might like to tell them,
they're no longer allowed to doso.
Governments ought not ever be ina position to legislate
personal decisions.
They should only ever beexpected to deal with the
fallout of the decisions thatthe public at large chooses to
make.
The government may make it moreand more difficult to smoke in
(22:41):
certain places and increase thetobacco taxes in hopes of making
them unaffordable, but theyaren't going around and
physically taking the cigarettesout of your pocket, and we have
real scientific proof thatsmoking unequivocally causes
increased health concerns.
We can't say the same forCOVID-19.
In fact, most politicians can'ttell you any consistent facts
regarding the virus almost fouryears later, and health
(23:04):
professionals are no different.
Speaker 6 (23:07):
You know, if you were to follow a busy doctor as he
makes his daily round of calls,you would find yourself having a
mighty busy time keeping upwith him.
Timeout for many men ofmedicine usually means just long
enough to enjoy a cigarette.
And because they know what apleasure it is to smoke a mild,
good tasting cigarette, they'reparticular about the brand they
(23:28):
choose.
In a repeated national survey,doctors in all branches of
medicine, doctors in all partsof the country were asked what
cigarette do you smoke, doctor?
Once again, the brand namedmost was Camel.
Yes, according to this repeatednationwide survey, more doctors
smoke Camels than any othercigarette.
(23:50):
Why not change to Camels forthe next 30 days and see what a
difference it makes in yoursmoking enjoyment.
See how Camels agree with yourthroat.
See how mild and good tasting acigarette can be.
Speaker 1 (24:06):
Meanwhile, Meta continues to fact check and
label false anything contrary totheir interpretation of the
official narrative, pushing outopposing dialogue and cancelling
anyone who dares not fall inline driving opposition to
alternate providers.
That not only further label theindividuals comprising the user
base of the other platformsbased on their association and
(24:26):
interaction with the alternateprovider.
Progressive content is welcomeon YouTube, but conservative
content is better received onRumble.
Eventually, they can write youoff as part of the group
entirely, without even having toinvestigate what it is you
might be saying because you'repart of an echo chamber of
dissenting ideologies.
No one seems to understand this.
When they're deleting theirFacebook profiles in favor of a
(24:47):
new account on true social Mewe,etc.
They are pigeonholingthemselves and completing their
profile of themselves themselves, Further alienating themselves
from those whose minds theymight like to change.
It's a vicious dog eat dogcycle that we must endeavor to
end.
Speaker 13 (25:04):
If we want more competition, we need an open and
free internet.
Justin Trudeau has tried toshut down competition by passing
censorship laws that give apowerful central bureaucracy the
control over what Canadians seeand say.
What that bill will do isreinforce oligopolies.
It will limit the number ofvoices that can compete for
(25:28):
Canadians' interests.
I don't think that Canadiansshould be forced just to listen
to the powerful corporate orstate-funded media.
I think that it should be freespeech, freedom of the press,
and then let Canadians decidewhat they read, what they see
and what they believe online.
Speaker 1 (25:48):
Why would the government take Meta head on,
given its apparent use as apropaganda and social order tool
?
It's more than just theprotection of Canadian media
companies, although that is apart of it.
Their payments to the mediacompanies and operational
bailout money and subsidizationmeans they also have to protect
their investment.
The Canadian content argumentis simply the launching point
fair pay, the reasoning and theability for more government
(26:09):
control regarding socialproviders, the end aim.
You see, social media in itsmany forms is a bit of a rogue
messenger.
While it operates under theguidelines and laws drafted for
similar companies, it is anevery-volving thing which was
not considered during theinitial legislation enacted
around the internet shortlyafter its advent.
Even as it exists in itscurrent form, it is subject to
(26:30):
change.
The government knows this inendeavors to keep up, but has
struggled to do so up to thispoint.
By enacting legislation whichforces MetaHead's compliance to
any degree, it sets the stagefor future government power
grabs or attempts to securecontrol of social media sites
and accounts, limiting contentor removing it entirely.
Orwell feared the governmentwould ban all books and Huxley
(26:52):
feared that there would come aday when there wasn't a book
worthy of banishment.
But as social media and ouronline lives converge with our
real counterparts, ourcollective fear should be that
there will one day be no booksat all.
The digitization of ourinformation renders hard copies
into simple backups on yetanother hard drive.
There is no physical andtangible article.
All it takes is for the powersthat be to decree that certain
(27:15):
information is inflammatory andthen for them to decide to
remove it, instantly, vanishing,from every online library or
digital book hosting site.
In time, they'll likely find away to corrupt every file
downloaded containing it, sothat, even if it were downloaded
and saved offline, it would becorrupted and unreadable upon
future extraction.
So, too, with art, movies,music, podcasts, news articles.
(27:39):
The list may be never ending.
Speaker 14 (27:42):
It's a question of education to teach people to be
on their guard against the sortof verbal booby traps into which
they're always being led, toanalyze the kind of things that
are said to them.
I think it's terribly importantto insist on individual values,
that every human being is unique, and it is, of course, on this
(28:03):
genetic basis that the wholeidea of the value of freedom is
base.
There are a number ofimpersonal forces which are
pushing in the direction of lessand less freedom.
The first of them can be calledoverpopulation.
The whole essence of biologicallife on earth is a question of
(28:23):
balance, and what we have doneis to practice death control in
the most intensive manner,without balancing this with
birth control.
At the other end, in theunderdeveloped countries, people
have less to eat and less goods, and the central government has
to take over more and moreresponsibility for keeping the
(28:44):
trip of state on an even peel.
And then, of course, you'relikely to get social unrest.
Under such conditions, with,again, an intervention of the
central government, one seeshere a pattern which seems to be
pushing very strongly towards atotalitarian regime.
Speaker 1 (29:00):
Which is why the government clamors to tighten
its grip on social mediaproviders by seizing more and
more control.
The government can subvert thesocial media platforms for their
own purpose.
Allowing them to exploit itfully is the propaganda
dissemination device that it isalready fast becoming, except
that it's Mark Zuckerberg whohas final say as we speak, and
that doesn't allow enough leewayfor the governments to use it
(29:23):
the way the government wouldlike.
They require more, if not fullcontrol of the platforms for
them to be adequately utilized.
That the government desires,which is why attempts on behalf
of the government to seizecontrol of social media
platforms must be ralliedagainst from every region of the
planet.
Speaker 6 (29:51):
nd of course Spartans have their reputation to
consider.
Speaker 3 (29:57):
Choose your next words carefully, Dionitis.
They may be your last as king.
Speaker 7 (30:09):
You bring the crowns and heads of conquered kings to
my city steps.
Speaker 9 (30:14):
You insult my queen.
You threaten my people withslavery and death.
Speaker 6 (30:20):
Oh, I've chosen my words carefully Persian Perhaps
you should have done the same.
Speaker 13 (30:27):
This is blasphemy, this is madness.
Madness, this is SPARTA.
Speaker 1 (30:37):
The media will assist the government in painting a
picture of Meta that would haveyou believe that Meta alone is
responsible for the lack ofinformation during recent fires,
for example, as though it's notthe government's duty to inform
citizens of such events, butrather the social providers.
If there is a disconnect betweenrelative information or an
issue with that informationbeing readily spread throughout
the population, then it is thefault of the government, not
(31:00):
Meta, that that did indeed occur.
Certainly, having newsunavailable on Facebook and
Instagram was inconvenient formany, but what steps did the
government take to address thesituation and get the
information out via any othermeans?
Nothing.
They took absolutely no extrameasures to ensure that the
information was readilyavailable, deciding instead to
(31:21):
deride Meta as being fully toblame for the lack of timely
emergency information.
Trudeau's resulting tempertantrum focused on throwing
shade at the tech companiesinstead of providing any
reasonable solutions oracknowledging that his
government's current legislationmay have exacerbated the
situation even somewhat slightly.
Instead, trudeau simply offersmore jejun remarks with
(31:41):
nougatory contributions toanything with even the most
remote resemblance of aforward-thinking plan, pointing
his fingers at others in a poorattempt to deflect blame from
himself.
Speaker 16 (31:51):
I do want to say a couple of words about the
devastating wildfires in theNorthwest Territories and in
British Columbia.
People are facing horrificsituations.
People are fleeing for theirlives, they're worried about
their communities, and Canadiansfrom coast to coast to coast
are watching in horror theimages of apocalyptic
(32:14):
devastation and fires going onin communities that so many of
us know and so many of us havefriends in.
This is a scary andheartbreaking time for people.
People have questions ofwhether they've lost their homes
, about whether they need toevacuate, about how things are
going, and that's where localnews is so important, and the
(32:35):
work that people are doing toshare messages and keep people
informed with safe, up-to-dateinformation is unbelievably
essential to keeping Canadianssafe.
That's why and I'm going tomake a comment on this it is so
inconceivable that a companylike Facebook is choosing to put
(32:56):
corporate profits ahead ofensuring that local news
organizations can get up-to-dateinformation to Canadians and
reach them, where Canadiansspend a lot of their time online
on social media, on Facebook.
Facebook made billions ofdollars in profits over the past
(33:17):
years, including off ofCanadians, and we recently
passed legislation that saysFacebook if you're going to be
sharing news or work done byCanadian journalists or local
news, you have to make surethey're compensated for it
fairly Well, instead of makingsure that local journalists are
fairly paid for keepingCanadians informed on things
(33:39):
like wildfires, facebook isblocking news from its sites.
In a larger picture, that's badfor democracy, because
democracy depends on peoplebeing able to trust high-quality
journalism of all sorts ofdifferent perspectives and
points of view.
But right now, in an emergencysituation where up-to-date local
(33:59):
information is more importantthan ever, facebook's putting
corporate profits ahead ofpeople's safety, ahead of
supporting quality localjournalism.
This is not the time for that.
This is the time for Canadiansto continue to pull together and
be there for each other.
It's time for us to expect morefrom corporations like Facebook
(34:20):
that are making billions ofdollars off of Canadians.
Speaker 1 (34:23):
Granted, people are complacent and tend to become
reliant on items of convenience,so it's easy to see how it
might be difficult to get peopleto accept a new form of
communication, especially in anemergency environment.
However, there are plenty ofapparatus that existed prior to
Facebook that were useful inhelping to ensure the free flow
of information in an emergency.
After all, it wasn't untilSeptember 26, 2006 that Facebook
(34:46):
opened to everyone at least 13years old with a valid email
address.
What did we do prior to 2006?
Well, for starters, there was alot more faith in breaking news
departments.
The media were far less partisanat one point than they are now.
There were such things asjournalistic integrity and
investigative reporting.
You weren't told what to think.
You were instead shown multipleperspectives from those
(35:07):
involved and left to decide onyour own how you felt about it
personally.
You could ruminate on it whilein the company of others and
garner their view on the subject, possibly inspiring your
outlook on it as well, and so on.
Politicians at one timeactually got asked real
questions and they had to givereal answers, not the platitudes
that are offered today,baseless and hollow statements
like the middle class and thoseworking hard to join it.
Speaker 15 (35:32):
How would you like to pay for that today?
Well, I'd like to thank theHonourable Wader for his
question and his continuedinterest in this very important
topic.
As the Wader will know, themethod of payment is something
that we've been consideringcarefully for a long time now.
I'd ask those sitting oppositewho have no method of payment in
mind, no method of payment, toconsider paying half the bill.
(35:54):
So how are you going to pay?
Let me just say this there willbe no F-POS under a lunch-eye
lead.
Speaker 1 (36:04):
Now imagine for a moment what it would be like if
the same government payoffcontrol scheme that was used to
manipulate and control theCanadian media was allowed to
extend to include social mediaplatforms when, instead of the
surveillance of Zuckerberg'sroom full of unqualified fact
checkers watching over yourcontent, it was a government
watchdog like CSIS or, worse yet, a progressively aligned
(36:24):
government organization intenton subjecting you to a certain
line of propaganda or alteringyour belief set.
This is the danger betweenlegislation like Bill C-11.
While it is not currently theaim, it is.
The line in the sandwich isdrawn now that will be
repeatedly moved later as theysee how much the tech giants
will tolerate and what theCanadian people will let them
get away with.
(36:45):
The problem is that they willnever tell you the truth, no
matter how much they would haveyou believe they will.
We cannot allow our platformsand social networks to come
under the government's thumb andshould support Meta and others
in their stand against them.
It is a precedent we need toavoid if we hope to maintain any
shred of our freedoms orentertain the prospect of free
thought or even democraticidentity.
Speaker 17 (37:07):
Haha, you fool.
You fell victim to one of theclassic blunders.
The most famous is never getinvolved in a land war in Asia.
But only slightly less wellknown is this never go all in
against a Sicilian when death ison the line.
Speaker 1 (37:27):
Canada's media outlets benefit greatly from the
ability of Canadian citizens toactively share the content that
outlets provide via theirpersonal social media accounts,
drawing attention to articlesthat are often hidden behind a
paywall and would gain littletraction without their being
shared in the first place.
While Canadian media outletscontinue to benefit from
taxpayer funds, they'rereluctant to offer any content
(37:49):
to taxpayers without additionalexpense, making it next to
impossible to access Canadiannews without their current
subscribers.
Sharing the articles off-site,where they can be accessed for
free by those without the meanswith which to afford a
subscription.
To tell social media companiesthey have to now pay the outlets
, even though they have nocontrol over what their users
post in terms of content orlinks outside of their so-called
(38:10):
independent fact-checkers, isludicrous.
Only a politician could thinkotherwise, unless we are going
to define the social mediaproviders as publishers, which
would mean they are somethingentirely different than it would
seem they are even trying tobecome.
Speaker 18 (38:24):
I think about 140 million Americans get their news
from Facebook, and when youmentioned the Senator Cornyn,
you said you are responsible foryour content.
So which are you?
Are you a tech company?
Are you the world's largestpublisher?
Because I think that goes to areally important question on
(38:46):
what form of regulation orgovernment action, if any, we
would take.
Speaker 8 (38:52):
Senator, this is a really big question.
I view us as a tech companybecause the primary thing that
we do is build technology andproducts, but you said you are
responsible for your content,which makes kind of a publisher
right.
Well, I agree that we areresponsible for the content, but
we don't produce the content.
I think that when people ask usif we are a media company or a
(39:13):
publisher, my understanding ofwhat the heart of what they are
really getting at is do we feela responsibility for the content
on our platform?
The answer to that, I think, isclearly yes, but I don't think
that that's incompatible with,fundamentally at our core, being
a technology company where themain thing that we do is have
engineers and build products.
Speaker 1 (39:32):
While Meta may be pushing Zuckerberg's own
narrative and selecting thevoices they choose to amplify or
label false, the governmentshouldn't be forcing Meta to
bend to their will either.
In fact, if free and opendiscourse is to be heralded,
then the government should berallying with the people against
Meta's one-sided actions atthat amount to nothing short of
censorship, plain and simple.
The government isn't upset thatMetta is censoring its platform
(39:55):
, though.
They just want to reserve thatjob for themselves.
Bill C-11 is simply the firstmajor step in that direction.
The more they can force thetech giants to bend, the more
control they exert over them.
Eventually, in time, thegovernment will find a way to
get the social media providersto total line, the same way they
got the Canadian media outletsto, although the social giants
(40:15):
are a long way from requiringsubsidization regardless,
they'll find a way to get theirsticky government fingers in the
pie one way or another and thenwrite laws to push the private
sector contingent out to allowfor their full control.
Once that happens, you can restassured that the changes will
be swift and instantlynoticeable.
It will also be far too late tostop it at that point.
Speaker 19 (40:36):
Facebook is out of the news game in Australia.
The social media giant saysit's restricting publishers and
users in the country fromsharing or viewing news content.
Facebook's moves is a responseto a proposed news media
bargaining law that would forceinternet companies to pay for
news content.
Speaker 1 (40:56):
This isn't the first time a government has attempted
to force their hand with socialmedia providers.
In February 2021, meta blockednews to users in Australia after
the news media bargaining codewas passed, which governs
conduct between Australian newsbusinesses and designated
digital platforms.
As a result, both Meta andGoogle made separate deals with
(41:16):
a series of media companies inAustralia to avoid designation
by Australia's treasurer, who istasked to designate and thus
force digital platforms likeMeta and Google to pay.
The Canadian government hasrefused to budge from their
position or bargain in goodfaith, in the same way as the
Australian government was able.
By offering the social mediaproviders the appearance of
choice, they were able to chooseto play along, rather than be
(41:38):
forced to do so under the weightof legislation.
If it really was about faircompensation, then Canada would
be able to act in a similarfashion.
This is a power struggle overan exceptionally useful tool
that could have far greaterrepercussions of allowed to fall
into the nefarious hands of thegovernment, which would be even
worse than under theprogressive watch of Mark
Zuckerberg as it is now.
At least, zuckerberg is onlyusing your information to
(42:01):
separate you from your wallet.
The government would be able touse that information to
separate you from your financesand your freedom.
Speaker 20 (42:08):
Well, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is calling for
more oversight online.
Zuckerberg is jumping into thedebate around regulating the
internet and calling ongovernments to take a more
active role in policing violentcontent.
Laura McQuillan is tracking thestory and joins us now.
So this is all in an op-ed byZuckerberg.
What does he have to say, Laura?
Speaker 21 (42:28):
Well, this is at odds with what we've heard from
him in the past, john, becauseZuckerberg has been resistant to
regulation of platforms likeFacebook, but now we're seeing
him come out and call for rulesfor the internet, and he wants
governments to act.
He even wants third parties tohelp act and to crack down on
social media when it's notgetting it right itself.
Take a look at these fourpoints that he laid out in the
(42:49):
Washington Post in this opinionpiece.
Starting with harmful content,he says that a third party body
could help hold companiesaccountable when they run things
like propaganda and hate speech, and more.
He says that standards shouldbe set for sites to be held to.
Also on protecting elections,which has been a big one for
Facebook in the past.
He says in terms of politicalads, they need help to identify
(43:13):
and verify political actors.
And privacy and data regulation,which you'll be familiar, with
Facebook having so much troublewith this one.
They want to see common globalregulations that protect users'
rights to how that informationis used, but they still want
companies to be able to use thatdata to provide services.
However, on this point,zuckerberg says those
(43:34):
regulations should also comewith sanctions, so when
companies quote, make mistakes,they'll be held to account.
And finally, on the subject ofdata portability, which is
moving your data between apps ordevices or into the cloud, he
says there need to be clearrules about who is protecting
that data, whether it's Facebookor whether it's someone else.
(43:55):
This from Mark Zuckerberg.
He says that Facebook could bedoing more, but it can't do it
alone and governments need tohelp out.
And we're hearing governmentssay well, we're prepared to step
up, one of those beingAustralia.
It wants this on the agenda atthe G20 meeting in June.
It wants governments to betalking together about how they
can regulate social media, holdit accountable, make it more
(44:15):
transparent, but it's yet to beadded to that agenda.
We'll be watching to see ifthere's more enthusiasm from
other countries as well.
Speaker 20 (44:22):
But Australia really has done even more than that in
that space.
Haven't they Tell us a littlemore about it?
Speaker 21 (44:27):
That's right.
Now they're promising to comeafter executives like Mark
Zuckerberg when they fail totake violent content off their
platforms.
Think, for example, of theChristchurch Mosque attacks and
that video that the shooter livestreamed on Facebook.
Well, many platforms haddifficulty taking that down, and
that's exactly what Australiawants to target.
Its government is promising newlegislation with two very hefty
(44:51):
penalties.
One of those would be potentialjail time of up to three years
for executives of their socialmedia companies, whether they're
in Australia, whether they'reoverseas and come into the
country.
They could be put behind bars.
Also fines these could be hugeup to 10% of a company's global
annual turnover Facebook'sturnover last year topping $50
(45:12):
billion.
So 10% of that well, that wouldbe a big hit to Facebook's
bottom line.
All of this will be left to ajury to decide if the company
acted fast enough to take thatcontent down.
So it will be somewhatsubjective one to watch, for
sure, but this is the firstcountry in the world talking
about doing something like this.
We are hearing others talkingabout acting, New Zealand
included, after, of course, thatattack took place there Canada
(45:35):
talking about it too, so perhapswe will see enough enthusiasm
to get that on the agenda at theG20 and to make something of it
going forward.
Speaker 1 (45:42):
This is not only possible, but probable and
highly likely.
Many are in full support ofseizing social media platforms
from their creators for thepurpose of government control.
According to ex-FacebookAustralia boss, steven Schiehler
, it's time for radical action.
It's time to break up the techgiants.
Speaker 22 (45:59):
I've come around to the view that the scale, size
and influence of these platforms, particularly on our minds, our
brains and all the things we doas citizens, as consumers, are
just so powerful that leavingthem in the hands of a few very
closely controlled companieslike Facebook is the recipe for
disaster, schiehler told BBC'sRadio Forrest Today program,
(46:19):
which means he believes thatonly government oversight and
limitation is the answer to whathe sees as the looming crisis
of private control.
Speaker 1 (46:26):
The principle of taxing tech companies to
subsidize newspapers set tofurther spread as the digital
age continues to eclipse theprinted, physical word.
The problem is, this willprobably benefit the major
newspaper businesses rather thanstruggling regional titles,
doing nothing to chip away atthe dominance of Facebook and
Google in online advertising orgiven edge to the Canadian
companies.
It was meant to benefit.
Speaker 3 (46:48):
About 5%.
If they search CBC news, forexample, they get a message like
this oh really, this is theMontreal Gazette.
They're hiding the news from us, so it looks something like
this I was seeing informationbefore, but now you cannot
access the information.
Speaker 11 (47:01):
If that happened to you.
What would you feel?
I would be definitely upset.
It's not free speech, it's notletting you see what the news
wants to project, and then youalso wouldn't get the news and
everybody else would be in theloop and you wouldn't be.
How did you feel about that?
Speaker 6 (47:14):
That was the comment, god, because at first it was so
easy to get some information,but now it's really crazy.
Speaker 7 (47:19):
I'm just wondering how that's allowed, because a
lot of people use Instagram astheir main source of anything,
whether it's not just news orwhatever, and a lot of people
repost posts to get the word out.
So I think not being able toaccess that is very concerning.
Speaker 4 (47:32):
Especially with our generation.
Nobody watches the news on TVanymore, Would you say you use
Instagram a lot to get your news.
Speaker 11 (47:37):
Yes, how else would you get your news?
Speaker 4 (47:39):
Probably from other people's Instagrams, I mean, I
know that I could go ontoPlatform's website, but I don't
know if I actually would inreality.
Speaker 1 (47:48):
It's not just the Canadian people who are facing
the negative consequences of thegovernment's actions either.
The US government under JoeBiden has been working on a
global flat tax for Americantech companies that operate on a
multinational level to avoidpossible operational deficits
should multiple countries adoptdigital services taxes,
preventing large companies fromavoiding their tax obligations
(48:09):
and other jurisdictions.
The initiative was designed toreplace digital services taxes
with a plan to distributecorporate tax revenue from the
world's biggest companies tocountries in which they sell
goods and services.
In July of this year, 130 othercountries involved in
negotiations agreed to hold backon implementing digital
services taxes until 2025 toallow for more time to come to a
(48:31):
consensus.
By implementing a digitalservices tax prior, canada
undermines the negotiationprocess and it could prove
counterproductive if the USretaliates by imposing tariffs
on Canadian goods.
A trade war would cost Canadiansfar more money than the digital
services tax would generate.
Furthermore, when the freetrade agreement is due for
review, it would be verydifficult to get an extension of
(48:52):
the current agreement if Canadahas a digital services tax in
place.
The US has already stated thisto be the case.
In fact, with all thisopposition to Bill C-11, you'd
think the Liberals wouldconsider making some concession
in order to avoid some of thefallout.
Instead, they've doubled down,blaming absolutely everyone but
themselves for their failinggrades, like a recently-collared
(49:12):
high school student with apenchant for truancy and
slacking off, taking noresponsibility or accepting any
blame whatsoever for the resultsof their poor choices.
It's little wonder, given thelevel of an experience that
exists throughout the LiberalParty, that they act so
impetuous and immature.
Speaker 5 (49:28):
I have decided to run for Congress.
Congress, no, I'm serious.
I mean not the big Congress, ofcourse, the little one, the
little one.
Speaker 8 (49:44):
The little one.
Speaker 5 (49:45):
Yeah, actually, I don't even know if it's the
Congress, it might be the stateSenate, I can't remember.
Anyway, I'm super excitedbecause we are so lucky and we
have so, so, so much, and I feellike we need to give something
back.
So I've decided I'm going torun for Congress or state Senate
or whatever, and my mainplatform is going to be the
(50:14):
environment.
State Senate Environment likethe whole environment, yeah.
I believe in all environmentsand I'm going to say it.
Speaker 1 (50:28):
Despite whatever explanations the government may
attempt to provide to garneracceptance for their position,
in this case they are not to bebelieved.
Their new legislation will notbenefit Canadian media outlets
the way they say.
We've already seen howdetrimental it is in that regard
.
It will not be of generalbenefit to Canadians either.
The results in that aspect havealso been well documented.
(50:48):
At this point, what it will beis good for the government A
means by which for thegovernment to profit, while
allowing them to slowly achievewhat they've been dreaming of
acquiring for quite some timeComplete control and regulation
of all social media platformsand, with it, further control of
the population through moreeffective propaganda
distribution and informationsuppression.
(51:09):
If you value free thought andfreedom, you won't support the
government in this power grab,regardless how much you may
dislike Mark Zuckerberg and thecompany.
In spite of the independentfact checkers and progressive
leaning ideologies extolled fromthe executive branch at Metta,
there's still a certain level ofprotection offered from the
government in having socialmedia providers under private
control.
Should the government takecontrol instead, social media
(51:33):
will become yet another tool intheir arsenal against you.
Just another way to increasepublic ennui and overall
contemporary anxiety, to make iteasier to manipulate you into
doing as they wish.
We'd be far better off to takeour chances with Zuckerberg.
At least that's what ThisCanadian Thinks.
(51:56):
I'd like to take this moment tothank you for listening to This
Canadian Thinks.
We appreciate your support andlook forward to creating more
episodes for your listeningpleasure.
If you're able, pleasesubscribe.
Your support helps us affordthe time to make these episodes,
in addition to helping us reacha wider audience.
If you're listening on aplatform, please hit the follow
button and be sure to hit thesubscription and notification
(52:17):
bell.
If you're watching on YouTube,and tell your friends and
neighbors about us too.
If you have any topics you'dlike This Canadian Thinks to
cover or ideas for guests thatmight be interested in appearing
in future episodes, be sure tolet us know.
We are also actively seekingsponsors and advertisers who
might be a good fit with ourprogram.
If you'd like to partner withus, we'd be happy to hear from
you as well.
Thanks so much, once again, forlistening to this podcast.
(52:40):
We hope you'll be back for manymore episodes to come.
Until next time, keep your mindopen and don't forget to think.
www.
(53:15):
trampledundertyranny.
com.
Whether we agree or agree to disagree, everybody's
got an opinion, and I'm about togive you mine.
So sit back, relax, buckle upand try not to get offended.
Welcome to This Canadian Thinks.
It's called a profile for areason.
It used to take a roomcomprised of a great many people
(00:21):
to create a workup that wouldthen result in a handful of
higher-up experts establishing abaseline consensus on who you
are, what you like, where youfrequent, what you buy or
fascinate over.
It was reserved for serialkillers and abductionists things
of that nature mostly becauseit was laborious and costly, and
let's not forget that it wouldbe a violation of the rights of
(00:41):
the average everyday citizen.
With the advent of the internetand the expansion of its
availability to more and morepeople, it was only a matter of
time before the information youwillingly input would eventually
pile up into a folder along theway.
Not unlike the dossier theprofile department would have
used to hold the relevantfindings and information
regarding the subject to whichthey were affixing their gaze.
(01:02):
This information has alwaysbeen known to have the ability
to be used for malicious intent,even in its relatively
innocuous state of order form.
From personal login information, plenty of technology, experts,
teachers and parents commentedearly on that anything you put
on the internet stays there.
You cannot erase it or removeit in any way.
It exists in some pocket of thecomplex zeros and ones used to
(01:25):
explain the content to thedigital apparatus and waits, as
though having a life of its own,waiting for the moment where it
will be called back from itscompressed state to once again
exist as the information that itonce was and still remains.
Be careful, they would say,protect yourself and trust that
no one is who they say they are.
Those warnings are all but mutenow, in the day and age in
(01:47):
which we reside, ushered in bythe social media era, Social
media is making us unsocial.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
Social media is killing relationships.
Social media is replacingexperiences.
Social media has changed theway we live our lives, from the
way we get news to the way weinteract with loved ones.
It's everywhere, it's powerfuland it's growing.
Speaker 1 (02:20):
It began innocently enough, the first being MySpace.
Myspace was an online communitywhere you were given a basic
website template that you couldpersonalize using codes and
plugins.
It was more about creating yourown individual website and not
as much about the actualinteraction between the websites
themselves.
It was great for networkingbands, models and other
(02:40):
celebrity personas, but itfizzled out once Facebook
entered the fray, where MySpacewas more about a unique and
individual space.
Facebook was about a communityplatform that was shared by
everyone, with the end goalbeing the ability for
interaction.
Instead of just hearing aboutsomeone's recent trip through a
mutual acquaintance or by localgossip, that person could post
(03:01):
photos and videos directly foryou to envy while scrolling
through your news feed instead,without communicating with
anyone else or even leaving thehouse.
It made keeping up with theJones's take on a whole new
meaning.
Speaker 3 (03:13):
MySpace is another case where a company just blew
it.
Facebook had no chance to win.
We should not have won themarket.
The network effects at MySpacewere so powerful.
The only reason we won wasbecause of the gross
incompetence of MySpacesystematically over a period of
many years.
Speaker 1 (03:28):
It was the first time you were asked to provide the
sheer amount of informationabout yourself that Facebook
required as well.
They didn't necessarily ask youto do it, it was simply part of
the process.
In the early days, the metadatathat was created during the
interaction with the platformwas priceless.
Only the tech savvy knew whatits exploitative potential was,
and at the time, there were norules or regulations stating
(03:49):
that they weren't allowed topass that information along to
third-party organizations, whichthey, of course, were doing for
a fee.
Naturally, there weren't a lotof ads back then, which is
telling the sheer incomegenerated off the sale of that
metadata being lost under newprivacy requirements met.
Facebook had to make up thedifference elsewhere at that
point.
That's when they turned theiralgorithms on us and used our
(04:10):
own metadata to manipulate theway we interacted with
advertisers.
Instead of just outrightselling it to them, using the
things we'd given themvoluntarily against us, we'd
written our own profiles forfree, obligingly filling in form
after form and liking andsharing enough that they knew
what to offer us, how to offerit to us and what it would take
to keep us interacting,distracted and entertained,
(04:33):
oblivious to the real-worldissues we face, and now
inundated with advertisementsand sponsored content.
Speaker 4 (04:39):
Besides, Fox Business has obtained internal
communications between the WhiteHouse and Facebook during the
height of the pandemic, and someof these communications that we
have obtained we cannot err onTV.
They need to be bleeped.
The big takeaway here WhiteHouse officials had an
F-bomb-riddled face-off withFacebook, demanding they hand
(05:02):
over more data on its users andasking for special tools to
target users, all in an effortto get more shots in arms.
President Biden's then-digitaldirector, rob Flaherty, asking
Facebook if government agenciescould have access to more
targeting tools.
Asking quote since it's aglobal pandemic, can we give
agencies access to targetingparameters that they normally
(05:24):
wouldn't be able to?
This pandemic power strugglehit its peak as Flaherty and the
White House's senior advisorfor the COVID response, andy
Slavitt, joined Biden's digitaldirector on a call where
Facebook employees were beratedby the White House for not
turning over more data.
Flaherty's saying on the call,quote I feel like we're running
around in circles.
Some partners give us lots ofinformation, some partners tell
(05:47):
us to F right off.
This feels like we're chasingour tails.
If you don't want to giveinformation, just say that.
My dream for Facebook to playball it's about will we get out
of this effing mess?
I'm not doubting that you weresincerely trying to solve this
problem in good faith.
I'm doubting that you weretelling us everything.
After this blow up, facebookdelivered a data dump to the
White House.
(06:07):
Just days later, in an emailobtained by Fox, facebook's then
VP of Global Affairs, nickClegg, emails his team with an
update saying this he, meaningSlavitt, was appreciative of the
data we sent through on Fridayand confirmed that Rob Flaherty
had said they have neverreceived so much data from us
before.
The White House did not respondto our request for comment.
(06:29):
Meta tells Fox what they handedover was from CrowdTangle,
meta's tool that analyzes publiccontent on its platform,
something the company haspublicly acknowledged they
shared with the White House.
But these discussionscontradict what the White House
said at the time, that theirengagement with social media
companies was purely flaggingmisinformation publicly
(06:50):
available on the site.
These communications show theywanted a whole lot more from
Facebook and were very angrywhen they didn't get it.
Speaker 1 (06:59):
It was the perfect weapon to deliver the messaging
required to administer thegovernment's pandemic response.
While beneficial in having theability to communicate with
others, it became an echochamber pretty quickly once the
tech companies understood moreabout what keeps you engaged
with their platforms, which istheir end goal not the
betterment of your health orwell-being or your relationships
with other people or even humanprogress, simply that you
(07:21):
interact with their platform forthe most amount of time
possible.
The longer you stay away, themore notifications they send you
, until they finally send yousomething you interact with or
you log in of your own accord.
Try it, you'll see for yourself.
Avoid Facebook for as long asyou're able.
Watch the increasing number ofnotifications for yourself.
Personally, I have thenotifications turned off.
Now I log in to see what'sgoing on there instead of
(07:43):
suffering the increasingdistractions.
Speaker 5 (07:46):
I just want to be a part of your life.
Speaker 6 (07:49):
What am I supposed to do?
You won't answer my calls.
You changed your number.
I mean I'm not going to beignored.
Speaker 1 (07:54):
It's easy to forget that it's a profile, though, to
get lost and give away moreinformation than we should be
comfortable with.
It's made even more difficultby little mind tricks that they
use to their advantage, likewhen they allege that only a
genius can answer all 15questions on a quiz or something
to that effect.
Everyone wants to think they'resmarter than everyone else, so
it's tempting to see how youactually stack up, but have you
(08:14):
ever noticed how the questionsaren't really that difficult or
genius level?
I mean, I'm not saying that youyourself, dear listener, are
not intellectually sound andfully capable, but you should be
able to admit that none of theaforementioned quizzes contain
questions anything close to thatwhich may require answers that
only a genius or an expert inthe field might provide.
It's a sham, a scam, aboondoggle, and yet countless
(08:38):
people fall victim every day andthey wonder how come their
accounts are always being hacked.
Trust me, it's not smart tointeract with that type of
content.
You shouldn't need to be agenius to figure that out.
Speaker 7 (08:50):
It is my strong conviction that every man, woman
and child has the right to adecent life, do they not?
A life free of struggles andhardship, free of a bad
complexion, free of cloggedchakras and free of having to
read a single science textbook.
Our competitor believes youshould have to pay premium
prices for snake oil.
Speaker 1 (09:12):
It was only a matter of time before Facebook would
grow to be such a monolith thatit could become a dangerous tool
in the wrong hands.
Problem is we didn't have anycontrol over who created it.
We could only concern ourselveswith the creation as it was
available to us under thesupervision of Mark Zuckerberg.
It was his baby.
We didn't task him withcreating it.
That's not to say thatZuckerberg is evil although many
(09:33):
would contend that he is butrather that we can't vet the
people who give us the things weend up integrating into our
everyday lives, any more than wecan legislate what people can
do in their spare time, such asthe case with Facebook,
originally created by a hornycollege student trying to
establish a means by which tomeet women, and having morph
considerably from there intowhat it is today, even
(09:54):
Zuckerberg couldn't haveimagined what it would become
back then.
Nor do any of us know what itwill further become in the
future.
However, facebook has shown itsuses or, perhaps more
appropriately, its flaws interms of manipulation and
exploitation in regards to itsuser base.
Otherwise, why was it necessaryto legislate and protect the
metadata once it was discoveredhow Facebook was using the
(10:15):
information in the past.
Once Facebook's name seemed tobecome a bit tarnished by their
one-sided ideologies and thequestionable use of their users'
personal information, and inanticipation of a new virtual
reality version of the internet,facebook and its subsidiary
Instagram, amalgamated under theoperating name of Meta.
This rebranding was necessaryto avoid the growing scrutiny at
(10:38):
the highest levels of theZuckerberg machine of the
actions of those found to beemployed there, like the extra
protection offered by being acorporation instead of a sole
proprietor, a mean by which toshield Zuckerberg and his most
loyal from liabilities that maysurface in the future.
Thank you for watching.
Speaker 8 (10:54):
I've been thinking a lot about our identity as we
begin this next chapter.
Facebook is one of the mostused products in the history of
the world.
It is an iconic social mediabrand, but increasingly, it just
doesn't encompass everythingthat we do Instagram, whatsapp,
(11:15):
messenger, quest, now Horizon,nazarene and more.
Building our social media appswill always be an important
focus for us, but right now, ourbrand is so tightly linked to
one product that it can'tpossibly represent everything
that we're doing today, letalone in the future Over time.
(11:36):
I hope that we are seen as ametaverse company and I want to
anchor our work and our identityon what we are building towards
.
We just announced that we aremaking a fundamental change to
our company.
We're now looking at andreporting on our business as two
different segments One for ourfamily of apps and one for our
(11:56):
work on future platforms, and,as part of this, it is time for
us to adopt a new company brandto encompass everything that we
do To reflect who we are andwhat we hope to build.
I am proud to announce that,starting today, our company is
now meta.
Speaker 1 (12:18):
That still doesn't change the fact that meta, as
it's now known, was complicitnot only in suppressing opposing
viewpoints, but in promotingdisinformation, in some cases
working in direct conjunctionwith governments worldwide,
masquerading as fact that whichwas not proven through any
outside independent testing orfull or even majority consensus
amongst the medical community.
(12:39):
Anything contrary to the companyline was disregarded, fact
checked and marked to bedisregarded by meta.
Employees hired to do exactlythat Not experts, not scientists
, not professionals, not eveneducators or authorities, simply
employees that were told whatto do and then trained how to do
it.
Then meta applied thealgorithms necessary to
(12:59):
automatically filter a certainset of prescribed content out,
and the employees then dealtwith user disagreements or
concerns when they arose,proving only that meta had
become a very useful propagandatool.
Indeed, so long as you agreewith the same viewpoints and
agendas as the people in chargeof meta, then you'll find your
safe space at Facebook andInstagram.
If not, then you'll be doxxedand your profile will be
(13:21):
weaponized against you by thosethat do.
Don't think for a second thatgovernments around the globe did
not take notice of this.
Speaker 9 (13:28):
My name's Landon.
I've been wanting to work atFacebook for as long as I can
remember.
Back in 2020, they had no jobopenings available here, except
for the role of a fact checker.
You know, I took the jobthought I was just going to be
scrolling, you know, my feed andjust keeping people honest, but
it turns out that is not thecase at all.
(13:49):
What's the best way to describeit?
Basically, it's only certainspecific information that they
like me.
Fact checking.
It's kind of complicatedactually.
It's pretty simple really, butPerfect.
Example right here we got acouple in front of a house new
home owners.
Well, have we fact checked that?
Did you talk to the bank?
Do they have a mortgage?
If so, you're not homeownersFact checked removed.
(14:09):
Remember, like back in collegewhen we all took that class
called critical thinking andthey would just put kind of all
the ideas in public and we wouldkind of choose which ones were
best using our brains.
We kind of got rid of all thaton the college campuses and
replaced it with, you know, safespaces and stuff like that, and
, you know, social media.
Fact checking is just thenatural progression of that.
Speaker 1 (14:33):
As more social media platforms begin to attempt to
fill the void left by theintolerance of those operating
meta, the resulting onlinecommunities become smaller cells
and more acutely focused echochambers themselves Contrary
opinion all but reserved fortrolling accounts.
On a differently alignedplatform, the debate and back
and forth required to find atolerant and acceptable position
(14:54):
on any number of topicsdisappears.
At that point when Facebookonce pioneered the way people
saw and interacted with oneanother, meta is now driving out
oppositional voices in favor ofa rather hollow take on
inclusion and equity.
Sound familiar?
It should.
It's the same formula used byprogressive governments globally
.
Speaker 10 (15:14):
You want to keep more of the money you earn.
I'm afraid that's very selfish.
We shall want to tax that away.
You want to own shares in yourfirm.
We can't have that.
The state has to own your firm.
You want to choose where tosend your children to school.
That's very divisive.
You'll send your child where wetell you.
(15:38):
Socialists don't like ordinarypeople choosing, or they might
not choose, socialism.
Speaker 1 (15:45):
It's surprising to me how progressives tend to
champion inclusion, usingdivision and shame, seemingly
expecting everything andeveryone they hate to love them,
in spite of the progressive'srevulsion of them touting the
line that everyone matters andeveryone is a valuable human
being.
Until you aren't, until youdon't think or believe the same
things they do, until youdisagree with their agenda or
(16:06):
second guess their motives, thenyou're less than human,
deserving of nothing beyond allhope or compassion, not even
worthy of being part of thecommunity or receiving medical
treatment.
Such was the case during thepandemic.
There were more than a fewpoliticians clamoring for people
who didn't get vaccinated to bebarred from medical care.
Should they end up with COVID,cheered on by a terrified voter
(16:27):
base desperate for a sense ofnormalcy, as punishment for
choosing to remain unvaccinatedexcept, just like you?
Their taxes go to paying forhealth care hospitals, nurses,
doctors, treatments, thevaccines that some people were
so proud to take, also taxpayerfunded.
The unvaccinated have as muchright to care as those who made
the decision to get vaccinated.
(16:48):
They've paid for it just thesame.
Would the government provide arefund for those who were
refused the services they havealready paid for?
After all, we are expected toaccept that we pay all the time
so that when it's our time toreceive medical attention, we
don't pay more out of pocketthan the taxes we have already
supplied up to that point.
When the time comes, whensomeone needs medical care, it's
(17:10):
too late to debate politics orpersonal choices.
Speaker 11 (17:14):
The community that faced the most restrictions on
their freedoms in the last yearwere those who made a choice not
to be vaccinated.
I don't think I've everexperienced a situation in my
lifetime where a person wasfired from their job or not
allowed to watch their kids playhockey, or not allowed to go
(17:34):
visit a loved one in long-termcare or hospital, or not allowed
to go get on a plane to eithergo across the country to see
family or even travel across theborder.
So they have been the mostdiscriminated against group that
I've ever witnessed in mylifetime.
That's a pretty extreme levelof discrimination that we have
seen.
I don't take away any of thediscrimination that I've seen in
(17:55):
those other groups that youmentioned, but this has been an
extraordinary time in the lastyear in particular, and I want
people to know that I find thatunacceptable, that we are not
going to create a segregatedsociety on the basis of a
medical choice.
Speaker 1 (18:12):
To say the health community was in support during
the pandemic is to believewhatever your local state
broadcaster tells you withoutquestion or further
investigation, which is adangerous line to tread, for
every doctor or health officialthat said one thing about the
virus, there is another thatwould refute it.
There was, and still is, simplyno accord when it comes to
COVID-19.
Its risk, its means or itsprevention.
(18:35):
The facts are, there are alwaysgoing to be illnesses and
dangers to the population.
It isn't the government's jobto keep you unexposed to those
dangers, but rather to deal withthe results of them.
You could jump out of a planeand your parachute doesn't open,
causing you to plummet to yourdeath.
Do we, then, outlaw skydiving asa means of prevention?
Free choice and freedom ingeneral means you are free to
(18:59):
make your own choices based onthe information you are given.
Not that the government orcompanies such as META should
make that decision for you,certainly not that they would
make those decisions for youbased on things they think might
happen, especially when theirresponses are based on erroneous
computer modeling that neverresulted in the estimated
outcomes in the first place.
The government's job is to makesure that we, the people, have
(19:21):
all the information possible tomake the best decisions for
ourselves in our particular andindividual situations, even if
it means embracing the samemeans by which to do so as their
fellow citizens, working withsocial media providers to ensure
that the tenets of democracyand freedom are equally applied
to them.
In providing a place fordialogue in the spirit of debate
and open conversation, notagainst or in tandem to a mutual
(19:44):
end not befitting the good ofthe people, such as when they
lockstep in propaganda provision.
Speaker 12 (19:50):
Three years ago started off kind of the COVID
response with the 15 days toslow the spread.
And yet here we are, threeyears later and they are still
clinging to some of these failedpolicies.
You've seen things like the VAXmandate for foreign travelers.
They're doing other things totry to do, but if you look at a
(20:12):
lot of the problems that we'refacing right now, if you look at
the inflation that we've seen,which has been devastating, if
you look at the spike ininterest rates, which has had a
huge impact on businesses and onhome purchasing, if you look at
even what's going on with thesebanks and this banking issue.
(20:32):
Those banks were operating withzero interest rates.
They were doing low bonds withrelatively low yield, but the
time was good because theinterest rates were zero.
And then they've now got caughtbecause the rates are spiking
and those investments are nolonger good investments.
You look at our workforce andlook, florida has bucked this in
(20:53):
many respects, but theworkforce in the United States,
once the policies went intoeffect, once all the spending
started happening, many peoplejust dropped out of the
workforce because of theperverse incentives that were
done, where you're basicallypaying people to drop out of the
workforce effectively and howdo you get them back?
(21:15):
Some have come back, but notall, not even close.
We've seen major supply chainproblems over the last three
years.
We've seen huge problems withmental health over the last
three years, especially instates that lock the kids out of
school for so long.
That is not the way you treatyoung people, and of course,
(21:35):
florida is an exception, butyou've seen historic education
declines in terms of theeducation performance.
And so we're here looking atthis three years out.
It's just important to say theexperts that designed these
policies and that were hectoringeverybody they were wrong about
(21:57):
almost everything.
Speaker 1 (22:00):
Government should never be in a position to
dictate if you can operate yourbusiness, restrict your
movements or usurp yourfundamental personal rights in a
free society, regardless of theTrojan horse they use to
present it, unless it's deemedto be illegal.
Of course, it's illegal to do alot of things.
It doesn't stop them fromhappening, though.
People still murder, drive atexcessive speed, intoxicated.
(22:20):
Even Many people are well awareof the dangers of smoking, and
yet they still smoke, as much asyou might like to tell them,
they're no longer allowed to doso.
Governments ought not ever be ina position to legislate
personal decisions.
They should only ever beexpected to deal with the
fallout of the decisions thatthe public at large chooses to
make.
The government may make it moreand more difficult to smoke in
(22:41):
certain places and increase thetobacco taxes in hopes of making
them unaffordable, but theyaren't going around and
physically taking the cigarettesout of your pocket, and we have
real scientific proof thatsmoking unequivocally causes
increased health concerns.
We can't say the same forCOVID-19.
In fact, most politicians can'ttell you any consistent facts
regarding the virus almost fouryears later, and health
(23:04):
professionals are no different.
Speaker 6 (23:07):
You know, if you were to follow a busy doctor as he
makes his daily round of calls,you would find yourself having a
mighty busy time keeping upwith him.
Timeout for many men ofmedicine usually means just long
enough to enjoy a cigarette.
And because they know what apleasure it is to smoke a mild,
good tasting cigarette, they'reparticular about the brand they
(23:28):
choose.
In a repeated national survey,doctors in all branches of
medicine, doctors in all partsof the country were asked what
cigarette do you smoke, doctor?
Once again, the brand namedmost was Camel.
Yes, according to this repeatednationwide survey, more doctors
smoke Camels than any othercigarette.
(23:50):
Why not change to Camels forthe next 30 days and see what a
difference it makes in yoursmoking enjoyment.
See how Camels agree with yourthroat.
See how mild and good tasting acigarette can be.
Speaker 1 (24:06):
Meanwhile, Meta continues to fact check and
label false anything contrary totheir interpretation of the
official narrative, pushing outopposing dialogue and cancelling
anyone who dares not fall inline driving opposition to
alternate providers.
That not only further label theindividuals comprising the user
base of the other platformsbased on their association and
(24:26):
interaction with the alternateprovider.
Progressive content is welcomeon YouTube, but conservative
content is better received onRumble.
Eventually, they can write youoff as part of the group
entirely, without even having toinvestigate what it is you
might be saying because you'repart of an echo chamber of
dissenting ideologies.
No one seems to understand this.
When they're deleting theirFacebook profiles in favor of a
(24:47):
new account on true social Mewe,etc.
They are pigeonholingthemselves and completing their
profile of themselves themselves, Further alienating themselves
from those whose minds theymight like to change.
It's a vicious dog eat dogcycle that we must endeavor to
end.
Speaker 13 (25:04):
If we want more competition, we need an open and
free internet.
Justin Trudeau has tried toshut down competition by passing
censorship laws that give apowerful central bureaucracy the
control over what Canadians seeand say.
What that bill will do isreinforce oligopolies.
It will limit the number ofvoices that can compete for
(25:28):
Canadians' interests.
I don't think that Canadiansshould be forced just to listen
to the powerful corporate orstate-funded media.
I think that it should be freespeech, freedom of the press,
and then let Canadians decidewhat they read, what they see
and what they believe online.
Speaker 1 (25:48):
Why would the government take Meta head on,
given its apparent use as apropaganda and social order tool
?
It's more than just theprotection of Canadian media
companies, although that is apart of it.
Their payments to the mediacompanies and operational
bailout money and subsidizationmeans they also have to protect
their investment.
The Canadian content argumentis simply the launching point
fair pay, the reasoning and theability for more government
(26:09):
control regarding socialproviders, the end aim.
You see, social media in itsmany forms is a bit of a rogue
messenger.
While it operates under theguidelines and laws drafted for
similar companies, it is anevery-volving thing which was
not considered during theinitial legislation enacted
around the internet shortlyafter its advent.
Even as it exists in itscurrent form, it is subject to
(26:30):
change.
The government knows this inendeavors to keep up, but has
struggled to do so up to thispoint.
By enacting legislation whichforces MetaHead's compliance to
any degree, it sets the stagefor future government power
grabs or attempts to securecontrol of social media sites
and accounts, limiting contentor removing it entirely.
Orwell feared the governmentwould ban all books and Huxley
(26:52):
feared that there would come aday when there wasn't a book
worthy of banishment.
But as social media and ouronline lives converge with our
real counterparts, ourcollective fear should be that
there will one day be no booksat all.
The digitization of ourinformation renders hard copies
into simple backups on yetanother hard drive.
There is no physical andtangible article.
All it takes is for the powersthat be to decree that certain
(27:15):
information is inflammatory andthen for them to decide to
remove it, instantly, vanishing,from every online library or
digital book hosting site.
In time, they'll likely find away to corrupt every file
downloaded containing it, sothat, even if it were downloaded
and saved offline, it would becorrupted and unreadable upon
future extraction.
So, too, with art, movies,music, podcasts, news articles.
(27:39):
The list may be never ending.
Speaker 14 (27:42):
It's a question of education to teach people to be
on their guard against the sortof verbal booby traps into which
they're always being led, toanalyze the kind of things that
are said to them.
I think it's terribly importantto insist on individual values,
that every human being is unique, and it is, of course, on this
(28:03):
genetic basis that the wholeidea of the value of freedom is
base.
There are a number ofimpersonal forces which are
pushing in the direction of lessand less freedom.
The first of them can be calledoverpopulation.
The whole essence of biologicallife on earth is a question of
(28:23):
balance, and what we have doneis to practice death control in
the most intensive manner,without balancing this with
birth control.
At the other end, in theunderdeveloped countries, people
have less to eat and less goods, and the central government has
to take over more and moreresponsibility for keeping the
(28:44):
trip of state on an even peel.
And then, of course, you'relikely to get social unrest.
Under such conditions, with,again, an intervention of the
central government, one seeshere a pattern which seems to be
pushing very strongly towards atotalitarian regime.
Speaker 1 (29:00):
Which is why the government clamors to tighten
its grip on social mediaproviders by seizing more and
more control.
The government can subvert thesocial media platforms for their
own purpose.
Allowing them to exploit itfully is the propaganda
dissemination device that it isalready fast becoming, except
that it's Mark Zuckerberg whohas final say as we speak, and
that doesn't allow enough leewayfor the governments to use it
(29:23):
the way the government wouldlike.
They require more, if not fullcontrol of the platforms for
them to be adequately utilized.
That the government desires,which is why attempts on behalf
of the government to seizecontrol of social media
platforms must be ralliedagainst from every region of the
planet.
Speaker 6 (29:51):
nd of course Spartans have their reputation to
consider.
Speaker 3 (29:57):
Choose your next words carefully, Dionitis.
They may be your last as king.
Speaker 7 (30:09):
You bring the crowns and heads of conquered kings to
my city steps.
Speaker 9 (30:14):
You insult my queen.
You threaten my people withslavery and death.
Speaker 6 (30:20):
Oh, I've chosen my words carefully Persian Perhaps
you should have done the same.
Speaker 13 (30:27):
This is blasphemy, this is madness.
Madness, this is SPARTA.
Speaker 1 (30:37):
The media will assist the government in painting a
picture of Meta that would haveyou believe that Meta alone is
responsible for the lack ofinformation during recent fires,
for example, as though it's notthe government's duty to inform
citizens of such events, butrather the social providers.
If there is a disconnect betweenrelative information or an
issue with that informationbeing readily spread throughout
the population, then it is thefault of the government, not
(31:00):
Meta, that that did indeed occur.
Certainly, having newsunavailable on Facebook and
Instagram was inconvenient formany, but what steps did the
government take to address thesituation and get the
information out via any othermeans?
Nothing.
They took absolutely no extrameasures to ensure that the
information was readilyavailable, deciding instead to
(31:21):
deride Meta as being fully toblame for the lack of timely
emergency information.
Trudeau's resulting tempertantrum focused on throwing
shade at the tech companiesinstead of providing any
reasonable solutions oracknowledging that his
government's current legislationmay have exacerbated the
situation even somewhat slightly.
Instead, trudeau simply offersmore jejun remarks with
(31:41):
nougatory contributions toanything with even the most
remote resemblance of aforward-thinking plan, pointing
his fingers at others in a poorattempt to deflect blame from
himself.
Speaker 16 (31:51):
I do want to say a couple of words about the
devastating wildfires in theNorthwest Territories and in
British Columbia.
People are facing horrificsituations.
People are fleeing for theirlives, they're worried about
their communities, and Canadiansfrom coast to coast to coast
are watching in horror theimages of apocalyptic
(32:14):
devastation and fires going onin communities that so many of
us know and so many of us havefriends in.
This is a scary andheartbreaking time for people.
People have questions ofwhether they've lost their homes
, about whether they need toevacuate, about how things are
going, and that's where localnews is so important, and the
(32:35):
work that people are doing toshare messages and keep people
informed with safe, up-to-dateinformation is unbelievably
essential to keeping Canadianssafe.
That's why and I'm going tomake a comment on this it is so
inconceivable that a companylike Facebook is choosing to put
(32:56):
corporate profits ahead ofensuring that local news
organizations can get up-to-dateinformation to Canadians and
reach them, where Canadiansspend a lot of their time online
on social media, on Facebook.
Facebook made billions ofdollars in profits over the past
(33:17):
years, including off ofCanadians, and we recently
passed legislation that saysFacebook if you're going to be
sharing news or work done byCanadian journalists or local
news, you have to make surethey're compensated for it
fairly Well, instead of makingsure that local journalists are
fairly paid for keepingCanadians informed on things
(33:39):
like wildfires, facebook isblocking news from its sites.
In a larger picture, that's badfor democracy, because
democracy depends on peoplebeing able to trust high-quality
journalism of all sorts ofdifferent perspectives and
points of view.
But right now, in an emergencysituation where up-to-date local
(33:59):
information is more importantthan ever, facebook's putting
corporate profits ahead ofpeople's safety, ahead of
supporting quality localjournalism.
This is not the time for that.
This is the time for Canadiansto continue to pull together and
be there for each other.
It's time for us to expect morefrom corporations like Facebook
(34:20):
that are making billions ofdollars off of Canadians.
Speaker 1 (34:23):
Granted, people are complacent and tend to become
reliant on items of convenience,so it's easy to see how it
might be difficult to get peopleto accept a new form of
communication, especially in anemergency environment.
However, there are plenty ofapparatus that existed prior to
Facebook that were useful inhelping to ensure the free flow
of information in an emergency.
After all, it wasn't untilSeptember 26, 2006 that Facebook
(34:46):
opened to everyone at least 13years old with a valid email
address.
What did we do prior to 2006?
Well, for starters, there was alot more faith in breaking news
departments.
The media were far less partisanat one point than they are now.
There were such things asjournalistic integrity and
investigative reporting.
You weren't told what to think.
You were instead shown multipleperspectives from those
(35:07):
involved and left to decide onyour own how you felt about it
personally.
You could ruminate on it whilein the company of others and
garner their view on the subject, possibly inspiring your
outlook on it as well, and so on.
Politicians at one timeactually got asked real
questions and they had to givereal answers, not the platitudes
that are offered today,baseless and hollow statements
like the middle class and thoseworking hard to join it.
Speaker 15 (35:32):
How would you like to pay for that today?
Well, I'd like to thank theHonourable Wader for his
question and his continuedinterest in this very important
topic.
As the Wader will know, themethod of payment is something
that we've been consideringcarefully for a long time now.
I'd ask those sitting oppositewho have no method of payment in
mind, no method of payment, toconsider paying half the bill.
(35:54):
So how are you going to pay?
Let me just say this there willbe no F-POS under a lunch-eye
lead.
Speaker 1 (36:04):
Now imagine for a moment what it would be like if
the same government payoffcontrol scheme that was used to
manipulate and control theCanadian media was allowed to
extend to include social mediaplatforms when, instead of the
surveillance of Zuckerberg'sroom full of unqualified fact
checkers watching over yourcontent, it was a government
watchdog like CSIS or, worse yet, a progressively aligned
(36:24):
government organization intenton subjecting you to a certain
line of propaganda or alteringyour belief set.
This is the danger betweenlegislation like Bill C-11.
While it is not currently theaim, it is.
The line in the sandwich isdrawn now that will be
repeatedly moved later as theysee how much the tech giants
will tolerate and what theCanadian people will let them
get away with.
(36:45):
The problem is that they willnever tell you the truth, no
matter how much they would haveyou believe they will.
We cannot allow our platformsand social networks to come
under the government's thumb andshould support Meta and others
in their stand against them.
It is a precedent we need toavoid if we hope to maintain any
shred of our freedoms orentertain the prospect of free
thought or even democraticidentity.
Speaker 17 (37:07):
Haha, you fool.
You fell victim to one of theclassic blunders.
The most famous is never getinvolved in a land war in Asia.
But only slightly less wellknown is this never go all in
against a Sicilian when death ison the line.
Speaker 1 (37:27):
Canada's media outlets benefit greatly from the
ability of Canadian citizens toactively share the content that
outlets provide via theirpersonal social media accounts,
drawing attention to articlesthat are often hidden behind a
paywall and would gain littletraction without their being
shared in the first place.
While Canadian media outletscontinue to benefit from
taxpayer funds, they'rereluctant to offer any content
(37:49):
to taxpayers without additionalexpense, making it next to
impossible to access Canadiannews without their current
subscribers.
Sharing the articles off-site,where they can be accessed for
free by those without the meanswith which to afford a
subscription.
To tell social media companiesthey have to now pay the outlets
, even though they have nocontrol over what their users
post in terms of content orlinks outside of their so-called
(38:10):
independent fact-checkers, isludicrous.
Only a politician could thinkotherwise, unless we are going
to define the social mediaproviders as publishers, which
would mean they are somethingentirely different than it would
seem they are even trying tobecome.
Speaker 18 (38:24):
I think about 140 million Americans get their news
from Facebook, and when youmentioned the Senator Cornyn,
you said you are responsible foryour content.
So which are you?
Are you a tech company?
Are you the world's largestpublisher?
Because I think that goes to areally important question on
(38:46):
what form of regulation orgovernment action, if any, we
would take.
Speaker 8 (38:52):
Senator, this is a really big question.
I view us as a tech companybecause the primary thing that
we do is build technology andproducts, but you said you are
responsible for your content,which makes kind of a publisher
right.
Well, I agree that we areresponsible for the content, but
we don't produce the content.
I think that when people ask usif we are a media company or a
(39:13):
publisher, my understanding ofwhat the heart of what they are
really getting at is do we feela responsibility for the content
on our platform?
The answer to that, I think, isclearly yes, but I don't think
that that's incompatible with,fundamentally at our core, being
a technology company where themain thing that we do is have
engineers and build products.
Speaker 1 (39:32):
While Meta may be pushing Zuckerberg's own
narrative and selecting thevoices they choose to amplify or
label false, the governmentshouldn't be forcing Meta to
bend to their will either.
In fact, if free and opendiscourse is to be heralded,
then the government should berallying with the people against
Meta's one-sided actions atthat amount to nothing short of
censorship, plain and simple.
The government isn't upset thatMetta is censoring its platform
(39:55):
, though.
They just want to reserve thatjob for themselves.
Bill C-11 is simply the firstmajor step in that direction.
The more they can force thetech giants to bend, the more
control they exert over them.
Eventually, in time, thegovernment will find a way to
get the social media providersto total line, the same way they
got the Canadian media outletsto, although the social giants
(40:15):
are a long way from requiringsubsidization regardless,
they'll find a way to get theirsticky government fingers in the
pie one way or another and thenwrite laws to push the private
sector contingent out to allowfor their full control.
Once that happens, you can restassured that the changes will
be swift and instantlynoticeable.
It will also be far too late tostop it at that point.
Speaker 19 (40:36):
Facebook is out of the news game in Australia.
The social media giant saysit's restricting publishers and
users in the country fromsharing or viewing news content.
Facebook's moves is a responseto a proposed news media
bargaining law that would forceinternet companies to pay for
news content.
Speaker 1 (40:56):
This isn't the first time a government has attempted
to force their hand with socialmedia providers.
In February 2021, meta blockednews to users in Australia after
the news media bargaining codewas passed, which governs
conduct between Australian newsbusinesses and designated
digital platforms.
As a result, both Meta andGoogle made separate deals with
(41:16):
a series of media companies inAustralia to avoid designation
by Australia's treasurer, who istasked to designate and thus
force digital platforms likeMeta and Google to pay.
The Canadian government hasrefused to budge from their
position or bargain in goodfaith, in the same way as the
Australian government was able.
By offering the social mediaproviders the appearance of
choice, they were able to chooseto play along, rather than be
(41:38):
forced to do so under the weightof legislation.
If it really was about faircompensation, then Canada would
be able to act in a similarfashion.
This is a power struggle overan exceptionally useful tool
that could have far greaterrepercussions of allowed to fall
into the nefarious hands of thegovernment, which would be even
worse than under theprogressive watch of Mark
Zuckerberg as it is now.
At least, zuckerberg is onlyusing your information to
(42:01):
separate you from your wallet.
The government would be able touse that information to
separate you from your financesand your freedom.
Speaker 20 (42:08):
Well, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is calling for
more oversight online.
Zuckerberg is jumping into thedebate around regulating the
internet and calling ongovernments to take a more
active role in policing violentcontent.
Laura McQuillan is tracking thestory and joins us now.
So this is all in an op-ed byZuckerberg.
What does he have to say, Laura?
Speaker 21 (42:28):
Well, this is at odds with what we've heard from
him in the past, john, becauseZuckerberg has been resistant to
regulation of platforms likeFacebook, but now we're seeing
him come out and call for rulesfor the internet, and he wants
governments to act.
He even wants third parties tohelp act and to crack down on
social media when it's notgetting it right itself.
Take a look at these fourpoints that he laid out in the
(42:49):
Washington Post in this opinionpiece.
Starting with harmful content,he says that a third party body
could help hold companiesaccountable when they run things
like propaganda and hate speech, and more.
He says that standards shouldbe set for sites to be held to.
Also on protecting elections,which has been a big one for
Facebook in the past.
He says in terms of politicalads, they need help to identify
(43:13):
and verify political actors.
And privacy and data regulation,which you'll be familiar, with
Facebook having so much troublewith this one.
They want to see common globalregulations that protect users'
rights to how that informationis used, but they still want
companies to be able to use thatdata to provide services.
However, on this point,zuckerberg says those
(43:34):
regulations should also comewith sanctions, so when
companies quote, make mistakes,they'll be held to account.
And finally, on the subject ofdata portability, which is
moving your data between apps ordevices or into the cloud, he
says there need to be clearrules about who is protecting
that data, whether it's Facebookor whether it's someone else.
(43:55):
This from Mark Zuckerberg.
He says that Facebook could bedoing more, but it can't do it
alone and governments need tohelp out.
And we're hearing governmentssay well, we're prepared to step
up, one of those beingAustralia.
It wants this on the agenda atthe G20 meeting in June.
It wants governments to betalking together about how they
can regulate social media, holdit accountable, make it more
(44:15):
transparent, but it's yet to beadded to that agenda.
We'll be watching to see ifthere's more enthusiasm from
other countries as well.
Speaker 20 (44:22):
But Australia really has done even more than that in
that space.
Haven't they Tell us a littlemore about it?
Speaker 21 (44:27):
That's right.
Now they're promising to comeafter executives like Mark
Zuckerberg when they fail totake violent content off their
platforms.
Think, for example, of theChristchurch Mosque attacks and
that video that the shooter livestreamed on Facebook.
Well, many platforms haddifficulty taking that down, and
that's exactly what Australiawants to target.
Its government is promising newlegislation with two very hefty
(44:51):
penalties.
One of those would be potentialjail time of up to three years
for executives of their socialmedia companies, whether they're
in Australia, whether they'reoverseas and come into the
country.
They could be put behind bars.
Also fines these could be hugeup to 10% of a company's global
annual turnover Facebook'sturnover last year topping $50
(45:12):
billion.
So 10% of that well, that wouldbe a big hit to Facebook's
bottom line.
All of this will be left to ajury to decide if the company
acted fast enough to take thatcontent down.
So it will be somewhatsubjective one to watch, for
sure, but this is the firstcountry in the world talking
about doing something like this.
We are hearing others talkingabout acting, New Zealand
included, after, of course, thatattack took place there Canada
(45:35):
talking about it too, so perhapswe will see enough enthusiasm
to get that on the agenda at theG20 and to make something of it
going forward.
Speaker 1 (45:42):
This is not only possible, but probable and
highly likely.
Many are in full support ofseizing social media platforms
from their creators for thepurpose of government control.
According to ex-FacebookAustralia boss, steven Schiehler
, it's time for radical action.
It's time to break up the techgiants.
Speaker 22 (45:59):
I've come around to the view that the scale, size
and influence of these platforms, particularly on our minds, our
brains and all the things we doas citizens, as consumers, are
just so powerful that leavingthem in the hands of a few very
closely controlled companieslike Facebook is the recipe for
disaster, schiehler told BBC'sRadio Forrest Today program,
(46:19):
which means he believes thatonly government oversight and
limitation is the answer to whathe sees as the looming crisis
of private control.
Speaker 1 (46:26):
The principle of taxing tech companies to
subsidize newspapers set tofurther spread as the digital
age continues to eclipse theprinted, physical word.
The problem is, this willprobably benefit the major
newspaper businesses rather thanstruggling regional titles,
doing nothing to chip away atthe dominance of Facebook and
Google in online advertising orgiven edge to the Canadian
companies.
It was meant to benefit.
Speaker 3 (46:48):
About 5%.
If they search CBC news, forexample, they get a message like
this oh really, this is theMontreal Gazette.
They're hiding the news from us, so it looks something like
this I was seeing informationbefore, but now you cannot
access the information.
Speaker 11 (47:01):
If that happened to you.
What would you feel?
I would be definitely upset.
It's not free speech, it's notletting you see what the news
wants to project, and then youalso wouldn't get the news and
everybody else would be in theloop and you wouldn't be.
How did you feel about that?
Speaker 6 (47:14):
That was the comment, god, because at first it was so
easy to get some information,but now it's really crazy.
Speaker 7 (47:19):
I'm just wondering how that's allowed, because a
lot of people use Instagram astheir main source of anything,
whether it's not just news orwhatever, and a lot of people
repost posts to get the word out.
So I think not being able toaccess that is very concerning.
Speaker 4 (47:32):
Especially with our generation.
Nobody watches the news on TVanymore, Would you say you use
Instagram a lot to get your news.
Speaker 11 (47:37):
Yes, how else would you get your news?
Speaker 4 (47:39):
Probably from other people's Instagrams, I mean, I
know that I could go ontoPlatform's website, but I don't
know if I actually would inreality.
Speaker 1 (47:48):
It's not just the Canadian people who are facing
the negative consequences of thegovernment's actions either.
The US government under JoeBiden has been working on a
global flat tax for Americantech companies that operate on a
multinational level to avoidpossible operational deficits
should multiple countries adoptdigital services taxes,
preventing large companies fromavoiding their tax obligations
(48:09):
and other jurisdictions.
The initiative was designed toreplace digital services taxes
with a plan to distributecorporate tax revenue from the
world's biggest companies tocountries in which they sell
goods and services.
In July of this year, 130 othercountries involved in
negotiations agreed to hold backon implementing digital
services taxes until 2025 toallow for more time to come to a
(48:31):
consensus.
By implementing a digitalservices tax prior, canada
undermines the negotiationprocess and it could prove
counterproductive if the USretaliates by imposing tariffs
on Canadian goods.
A trade war would cost Canadiansfar more money than the digital
services tax would generate.
Furthermore, when the freetrade agreement is due for
review, it would be verydifficult to get an extension of
(48:52):
the current agreement if Canadahas a digital services tax in
place.
The US has already stated thisto be the case.
In fact, with all thisopposition to Bill C-11, you'd
think the Liberals wouldconsider making some concession
in order to avoid some of thefallout.
Instead, they've doubled down,blaming absolutely everyone but
themselves for their failinggrades, like a recently-collared
(49:12):
high school student with apenchant for truancy and
slacking off, taking noresponsibility or accepting any
blame whatsoever for the resultsof their poor choices.
It's little wonder, given thelevel of an experience that
exists throughout the LiberalParty, that they act so
impetuous and immature.
Speaker 5 (49:28):
I have decided to run for Congress.
Congress, no, I'm serious.
I mean not the big Congress, ofcourse, the little one, the
little one.
Speaker 8 (49:44):
The little one.
Speaker 5 (49:45):
Yeah, actually, I don't even know if it's the
Congress, it might be the stateSenate, I can't remember.
Anyway, I'm super excitedbecause we are so lucky and we
have so, so, so much, and I feellike we need to give something
back.
So I've decided I'm going torun for Congress or state Senate
or whatever, and my mainplatform is going to be the
(50:14):
environment.
State Senate Environment likethe whole environment, yeah.
I believe in all environmentsand I'm going to say it.
Speaker 1 (50:28):
Despite whatever explanations the government may
attempt to provide to garneracceptance for their position,
in this case they are not to bebelieved.
Their new legislation will notbenefit Canadian media outlets
the way they say.
We've already seen howdetrimental it is in that regard
.
It will not be of generalbenefit to Canadians either.
The results in that aspect havealso been well documented.
(50:48):
At this point, what it will beis good for the government A
means by which for thegovernment to profit, while
allowing them to slowly achievewhat they've been dreaming of
acquiring for quite some timeComplete control and regulation
of all social media platformsand, with it, further control of
the population through moreeffective propaganda
distribution and informationsuppression.
(51:09):
If you value free thought andfreedom, you won't support the
government in this power grab,regardless how much you may
dislike Mark Zuckerberg and thecompany.
In spite of the independentfact checkers and progressive
leaning ideologies extolled fromthe executive branch at Metta,
there's still a certain level ofprotection offered from the
government in having socialmedia providers under private
control.
Should the government takecontrol instead, social media
(51:33):
will become yet another tool intheir arsenal against you.
Just another way to increasepublic ennui and overall
contemporary anxiety, to make iteasier to manipulate you into
doing as they wish.
We'd be far better off to takeour chances with Zuckerberg.
At least that's what ThisCanadian Thinks.
(51:56):
I'd like to take this moment tothank you for listening to This
Canadian Thinks.
We appreciate your support andlook forward to creating more
episodes for your listeningpleasure.
If you're able, pleasesubscribe.
Your support helps us affordthe time to make these episodes,
in addition to helping us reacha wider audience.
If you're listening on aplatform, please hit the follow
button and be sure to hit thesubscription and notification
(52:17):
bell.
If you're watching on YouTube,and tell your friends and
neighbors about us too.
If you have any topics you'dlike This Canadian Thinks to
cover or ideas for guests thatmight be interested in appearing
in future episodes, be sure tolet us know.
We are also actively seekingsponsors and advertisers who
might be a good fit with ourprogram.
If you'd like to partner withus, we'd be happy to hear from
you as well.
Thanks so much, once again, forlistening to this podcast.
(52:40):
We hope you'll be back for manymore episodes to come.
Until next time, keep your mindopen and don't forget to think.
www.
(53:15):
trampledundertyranny.
com.
Popular Podcasts
United States of Kennedy
United States of Kennedy is a podcast about our cultural fascination with the Kennedy dynasty. Every week, hosts Lyra Smith and George Civeris go into one aspect of the Kennedy story.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Bookmarked by Reese's Book Club
Welcome to Bookmarked by Reese’s Book Club — the podcast where great stories, bold women, and irresistible conversations collide! Hosted by award-winning journalist Danielle Robay, each week new episodes balance thoughtful literary insight with the fervor of buzzy book trends, pop culture and more. Bookmarked brings together celebrities, tastemakers, influencers and authors from Reese's Book Club and beyond to share stories that transcend the page. Pull up a chair. You’re not just listening — you’re part of the conversation.