Category: Free Speech

Posted on

Journalism Trust Initiative; Trusted News Initiative; Project Origin; The Trust Project

Having an open, independent and free media is essential to any functioning society. However, that is not the case here. Groups like the “Journalism Trust Initiative” sounds like something that might have been concocted in the Soviet Union. But no, it’s operational within the free world.

1. Important Links

(1) https://jti-rsf.org/en/
(2) https://jti-rsf.org/en/about
(3) RSF Sues Facebook, Claims Too LITTLE Censorship
(4) https://archive.is/A6847
(5) https://www.bbc.com/mediacentre/2020/trusted-news-initiative-vaccine-disinformation
(6) https://www.originproject.info/
(7) https://id2020.org/
(8) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdTTl-C4PTM
(9) https://firstdraftnews.org/latest/fake‐news‐complicated
(10) https://contentauthenticity.org
(11) https://www.partnershiponai.org
(12) https://www.partnershiponai.org/ai‐and‐media‐integrity‐steering‐committee
(13) https://www.wired.com/story/deepfakes‐getting‐better‐theyre‐easy‐spot
(14) https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.07886
(15) https://thetrustproject.org/
(16) https://thetrustproject.org/#indicators
(17) https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2015/today-in-media-history-in-1947-the-press-reported-on-the-hutchins-commission-report/
(18) https://www.cbc.ca/news/editorsblog/editor-blog-trust-1.5936535
(19) https://cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/impact-and-accountability/local-news-directory

2. “News Trust” Groups To Investigate

There is something Orwellian or dystopian about organizations that have to stress so frequently that they are trustworthy sources. These are groups which are supposed to be doing this in journalism.

  • Journalism Trust Initiative
    1. Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
    2. European Broadcasting Union (EBU)
    3. Agence France Presse (AFP)
  • Trusted News Initiative
  • Project Origin
    1. British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)
    2. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC)
    3. Radio-Canada
    4. Microsoft
    5. New York Times
  • The Trust Project
    1. Sally Lehrman
    2. Microsoft Defending Democracy Program
    3. The Peg and Rick Young Foundation
    4. the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation
    5. Trustworthy Journalism Initiative of Craig Newmark Philanthropies
    6. Bing
    7. Facebook
    8. Google

Who can forget the Q-Anon saying to “trust the plan”? After all, there was supposed to be some secret army ready to take out the Deep State, and put all of the pedophiles in jail. Also, “Operation Trust” was a scheme in the 1920s to keep the Communists in power in the Soviet Union, by letting people think there was a plot already underway.

This may seem crazy, but perhaps these “trust” groups operate in much the same way, and to achieve essentially the same purpose of deflating resistance to the current power structure.

There is another thread that runs through these NGOs. They all oppose what they call “misinformation” surrounding legitimate questions of this “pandemic”. Each one supports the official narrative.

3. Who’s Behind Journalism Trust Initiative

  • Reporters Without Borders (RSF) in partnership with:
  • European Broadcasting Union (EBU)
  • Agence France Presse (AFP)

Reporters Without Borders, the European Broadcasting Union, and Agence France Presse are the 3 main groups behind the Journalism Trust Initiative. That being said, their organization has grown considerably since the founding in 1985.

Here is a list of selected participants in the development stage of the JTI Standard included, in alphabetical order. Note: these names came directly from their website.

  • All-Russia State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company (VGTRK, Russia)
  • Associated Press (USA)
  • Association of Taiwanese Journalists (Taiwan)
  • Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni (AGCOM, Italy)
  • BBC (UK)
  • City University of New York (CUNY, USA)
  • Civil (USA)
  • Deutsche Presse Agentur (dpa, Germany)
  • Ethical Journalism Network (EJN)
  • European Association for the Co-ordination of Consumer Representation in Standardisation (ANEC)
  • Facebook (USA)
  • Fondation Hirondelle (Switzerland)
  • Free Press Unlimited (FPU, the Netherlands)
  • Gazeta Wyborcza (Poland)
  • Global Disinformation Index (GDI)
  • Google (USA)
  • The Independent Monitor for the Press (IMPRESS, UK)
  • Internews (UK)
  • Journalists Association of South Korea (JAK, South Korea)
  • NewsGuard (USA)
  • Norsk Rikskringkasting (NRK, Norway)
  • RTL Group (Luxembourg)
  • Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ, USA)
  • Swiss Press Council (Switzerland)
  • Tagesspiegel (Germany)
  • Tamedia (Switzerland)
  • Thomson Foundation (UK)
  • TT Nyhetsbyrån (Sweden)
  • World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
  • United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

Some of these names should immediately stand out, such as Facebook, Google and UNESCO. Yes, 3 of the most powerful organizations are involved in this. As for the 3 behind JTI:

(a) Founded in 1985, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) became one of the world’s leading NGOs in the defence and promotion of freedom of information. RSF is registered in France as a non- profit organization based in Paris, with consultative status at the United Nations, UNESCO, the Council of Europe and the International Organization of the Francophonie (OIF). Our foreign sections, bureaux in ten cities, and a network of correspondents in 130 countries….

(b) The European Broadcasting Union (EBU) is the world’s foremost alliance of public service media (PSM). Our mission is to make PSM indispensable. We represent 117 media organizations in 56 countries in Europe, the Middle East and Africa; and have an additional 34 Associates in Asia, Africa, Australasia and the Americas. Our Members operate nearly 2,000 television and radio channels alongside numerous online platforms….

(c) Founded in 1835, Agence France-Presse (AFP) is the third largest international news agency in the world delivering fast, accurate, in-depth coverage of the events shaping our world, from conflicts to politics, economics, sports, entertainment and the latest breakthroughs in health, science and technology.

That is how they describe themselves. While there is nothing wrong with people in the industry collaborating, the concern comes when viewpoint diversity is stifled. Legitimate debate and contrary points of view can simply be disregarded.

We live in an era of the grand de-enlightenment.
.
On the Internet, algorithms tend to amplify the extremes – sensationalism, rumours, hate and falsehoods. Opinion and beliefs trump facts. The rule-makers in big-tech are not accountable to anyone. The rules of the game are in- transparent and change all the time.
.
On this rocky, tilting and ever turning playing field, journalism is unfairly disadvantaged, losing reputation, reach and revenues – which renders it even less competitive.
.
That logic needs to be reversed. Democracy dies without a fact-based discourse.

Everything in this section sounds entirely reasonable, and valid. The internet does tend to promote fake news and sensationalized nonsense over real journalism. And true, democracy is dead without a fact based discourse. However, what this group finds acceptable does not match with many others.

4. RSF Sues Facebook, Too LITTLE Censoring

This Complaint, filed in France, should terrify people. Reporters Without Borders is upset that Facebook isn’t doing enough to censor so-called misinformation on its platform. To repeat: the allegation is that Facebook SHOULD DO MORE to censor people spreading different views on the so-called pandemic.

Facebook has been notorious for its revised Terms of Service, and deplatforming, but that apparently wasn’t enough. RSF is taking action against a member of its own group.

Note: the Complaint itself doesn’t seem to be posted. RSF has been contacted for a copy of it.

For an example of how extensively Facebook already censors, consider this: Kevin Chan of Facebook Canada bragged to Canadian politicians that over 16 million pieces of “misinformation” had already been removed. But that apparently isn’t good enough.

5. Trusted News Initiative (TNI)

The Trusted News Initiative (TNI) was set up last year to protect audiences and users from disinformation, particularly around moments of jeopardy, such as elections. The TNI complements existing programmes partners have in place.
.
The partners currently within the TNI are: AP, AFP; BBC, CBC/Radio-Canada, European Broadcasting Union (EBU), Facebook, Financial Times, First Draft, Google/YouTube, The Hindu, Microsoft , Reuters, Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, Twitter, The Washington Post.
.
The TNI cooperative framework has been jointly developed amongst partners, and relates to only the most serious disinformation, which threatens life or the integrity of the electoral process. This is entirely separate from and does not in any way affect the editorial stance of any partner organisation.

At least we’re getting some honesty here. The Trusted News Initiative was set up primarily to counter “misinformation” of a serious nature. It specifically cites elections and this “pandemic”.

Although not explicitly stated, having these groups band together in such a way would be quite effective at censoring legitimate information. Of course, it would always be passed of as an emergency.

A cynic might wonder if Trump intentionally went on about election conspiracy theories in order to help justify the collusion of these “independent” media outlets. Perhaps this is reaching, but it would explain a lot.

Interestingly, although not surprisingly, Facebook and Google are both part of the Trusted News Initiative.

6. Project Origin — Microsoft A Partner

Project Origin was established to provide a platform for collaboration and discussion among a set of partners on the creation and adoption of a new media provenance tracking process, aimed initially at news and information content. At scale, this process could encompass traditional publishing (electronic and print), information technology, social media and consumer software. We are planning for a multiparty stakeholder, cross-organisational collaboration around combating disinformation.

Positive authentication of the provenance of legitimate news stories will help by making it easier to identify manipulated and synthetic audiovisual content. The Origin process is conceptually designed to work with text, video, images and audio content.

The Origin collaborators have agreed to develop a framework for an engineering approach, initially focusing on video, images, and audio. We hope this work could be helpful in developing a global standard for establishing content integrity.

CBC/Radio-Canada, the British Broadcasting Corporation and Microsoft are working together with what is called “Project Origin“. The stated goal is to be able to find the origin and background of news that is making its way onto public domains.

Never mind that Microsoft is heavily involved in ID2020, or that the BBC receives regular financing from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Forget about Gates’ ties to the pharmaceutical industry. Surely, this organization is about promoting truth and accuracy in media.

Project Origin offers a more technical way of finding the sources, such as tracing the image, or similar word patterns, or seeing where else it has been published. Consider it a form of cyber-sleuthing for content flagged as “misinformation”.

Media Provenance Countering Synthetic Media

SOURCES:
1. C. Wardle, “Fake news. It’s complicated”, First Draft, Feb. 2017. Available at:
https://firstdraftnews.org/latest/fake‐news‐complicated.
2. “Setting the industry standard for digital content attribution”, The Content Authenticity Initiative, 2019.
Available at: https://contentauthenticity.org.
3. The Partnership on AI. Available at: https://www.partnershiponai.org.
4. “AI and Media Integrity Steering Committee”, The Partnership on AI, 2019. Available at:
https://www.partnershiponai.org/ai‐and‐media‐integrity‐steering‐committee.
5. G. Barber, “Deepfakes Are Getting Better”, WIRED Magazine, May 2019. Available at
https://www.wired.com/story/deepfakes‐getting‐better‐theyre‐easy‐spot.
6. “News Provenance Project”, New York Times, 2018. Available at:
https://www.newsprovenanceproject.com/resources.
7. P. England et. al., “AMP: Authentication of Media via Provenance”, arXiv:2001.07886, Jan. 2020.
Available at https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.07886.
8. M Russinovich e.t al., “CCF: A Framework for Building Confidential Verifiable Replicated Services”,
Microsoft Research Technical Report MSR‐TR‐2019‐16, Apr. 2019. Available at
https://www.microsoft.com/en‐us/research/publication/ccf‐a‐framework‐for‐building‐confidential‐verifiable‐replicated‐services.

Project Origin does post a research paper going into extensive detail about how such a system may be organized. It would incorporate AI into it, flagging content deemed suspicious. How the metadata is actually used is explained in considerable deta in video as well.

7. The Trust Project, Social Media Grouping

The Trust Project is an organization of some 200 media outlets which conform to certain preset standards of journalism. The propagation and promotion of the their work across social media in influenced by Bing, Facebook and Google. Among the Canadian members are:

  • CBC
  • CTV
  • Globe & Mail
  • The Canadian Press
  • Toronto Star

The Trust Project does have its 8 Trust Indicators listings, and they are quite good. The problem is that these organizations don’t practice what they preach in terms of differing views. Specifically, contradictory information on this “pandemic” narrative are censored, and otherwise smeared as conspiracy theories.

At least on paper, there is nothing objectionable about this NGO. The issues arise when their behaviour in practice is considered.

The Trust Project references the 1947 Hitchens Commission to base this on. The report claims that democracy is in danger if there isn’t a free media, and that control in the hands of too few people is a danger. Instead of reading this as a warning, it appears to have become a roadmap, given how much media collusion we now have.

These trust groups function like a modern day Mockingbird Media. It really is one group that controls nearly everything.

8. CBC’s Efforts To “Rebuild Trust”

About a month ago, CBC, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, published an article that stated trust in it was waning. It emphasized that efforts were being undertaken to rebuild that trust, and went into significant detail.

  • CBC News is a member of the Journalism Trust Initiative (JTI), an effort to establish globally recognized standards of trustworthiness in news, led by Journalists without Borders, the European Broadcasting Union and Agence France-Presse. As part of a recent pilot, we submitted a 70-page questionnaire on our practices for an independent review and hope to share the results in the near future.
  • CBC/Radio-Canada has been a member of the Trusted News Initiative (TNI) since its inception in 2019. The TNI brings together global news organizations and tech platforms to combat disinformation. It created a real-time, early warning system to flag serious disinformation that may pose a threat to life or the integrity of the electoral process. It has been activated for the general elections in the U.K., Taiwan, Myanmar and the U.S., as well as the COVID-19 pandemic. The TNI will host a Trust in News conference later this month.
  • CBC/Radio-Canada has joined with the BBC, the New York Times and Microsoft in support of an effort to develop Project Origin, an open standard for confirming the authenticity of content from trusted sources to fight “deep fake” video news generated by artificial intelligence. This is a new application of established technology to digitally verify the authenticity of our news content when it appears on other online platforms.
  • CBC News is part of the Trust Project, an international partnership with tech and media companies to increase transparency and accuracy in online news. CBC policies on transparent labels, corrections, bylines and links to our JSP on our digital pages have become a model for other partners in the project.

While there are some legitimate steps in the article that CBC can take, it seems strange to partner up with so many other groups, such as the ones listed above. It takes away from the independence (or even the illusion of independence), to be so tightly interwoven with these “trust” groups.

CBC does have its own “directory” of trusted news groups, which seems Orwellian. Part of Canadians’ tax dollars are going towards creating a database of outlets that will not stray from permitted narratives.

9. Media, Social Media, Influence And Subsidies

CBC claims it wants to improve the trust it has among Canadians. However, it doesn’t raise any eyebrows when something like this happens: Dominic LeBlanc openly suggesting passing laws to combat “misinformation”. Since there is ideological alignment, this chilling statement goes largely unchallenged.

It seems that outlets like CBC wish to “appear” to be trustworthy, but have no interest in conducting themselves in ways that genuinely foster trust. How bad is the media bias?

(1) Unifor, Media, In Bed With Gov’t, $595M
(2) True North Canada A Fake Charity, Subsidized By Public
(3) Government Subsidizes Postmedia To Ensure Positive Coverage
(4) Aberdeen Publishing Takes Handouts, Ignores Real Issues
(5) More Periodicals Taking Grants, Parroting Gov’t Narrative
(6) Subsidized Fact-Check Outlets Run By Political Operatives
(7) Groups Funded By Tax Dollars To Combat “Misinformation”
(8) Even More Subsidies Canadian Outlets Are Dependent On
(9) DisinfoWatch Has Ties To Atlas Network/Koch, Liberal Party
(10) Media, Banks, CU, Getting CDA Emergency Wage Subsidies
(11) Advertising And Marketing In Promoting “Pandemic” Narrative
(12) NSERC/SSHRC/CIHR Grants In “Confidence”; Mandatory Vaxx
(13) Bill C-10; Open Collusion Between Ottawa, Social Media
(14) Facebook; Kevin Chan; Peter Donolo; Rachel Curran; Erin O’Toole

The unfortunate reality is that there are many legitimate reasons to not trust the media in Canada, and elsewhere. Coming together in these groups does little to conceal the lack of genuine interest in journalism. While it’s true that professionals so have to sell to make a living, it shouldn’t come at the expense of their integrity.

Posted on

CV #40(D): Kevin Chan, Facebook, Peter Donolo, Rachel Curran, Ottawa Colluding On “Pandemic” Narrative

Kevin Chan, the head of Facebook Canada, had a public meeting with members of the Canadian Government on March 31, 2021. The main topic of discussion was on how Facebook can be used as a tool to help promote the pandemic psy-op. At this point, they aren’t even bothering to hide the fact that they’re all working together.

1. Meeting With Public Health Officials

Chan brags about how effective Facebook has been at censoring opinions and information that contradict the ever changing official narrative. He claims that 16,000,000 pieces of “misinformation” have been removed for violating these terms of service. The entire event is publicly available. They don’t pretend to hide it, although they never really did.

in fact, even back in October (see 3:50), the Federal Government admitted in a very straightforward manner that it worked with social media outlets. This was to remove certain material, or at least manipulate the algorithm to such a degree it could not easily be found.

2. Important Links

facebook.com/facebookappCanada/videos/4191036604275048/
Kevin Chan, Office Of Lobbying Commissioner
Facebook Grants, Part 1
Facebook Grants, Part 2
Facebook Announces $8 Million In Spending
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevin-chan-m-s-m-5a13b140/
https://archive.is/Ngbtb
https://www.linkedin.com/in/peter-donolo-b71244101/
Open Society “Global Member”, Michael Ignatieff
https://archive.is/qpIJ1
https://archive.is/DXsbT
Ottawa Funded Projects Against Disinformation
https://archive.is/VS3Fm
CIVIX Funding From Federal Government
https://civix.ca/who-we-are/
https://archive.is/qBJtQ
https://jhr.ca/about/the-team
https://archive.is/fppXt
https://jhr.ca/our-work/canada-combatting-misinformaton
https://archive.is/Tlhsb
https://disinfowatch.org/database/
https://archive.is/wfJxb
https://www.linkedin.com/in/chadrogerscrestviewstrategy/
https://archive.is/sDwy2
https://www.linkedin.com/in/rachel-curran-a99258109/
https://archive.is/kxqBE
Erin O’Toole Promotes “War Footing” In Canada
Erin O’Toole, Facebook Lobbyist
https://archive.is/CNa4I

3. Kevin Chan & Facebook Canada

Information about Kevin Chan‘s time in Public Office can be obtained by searching Facebook with the Lobbying Registry of Canada. From 2004 to 2009, he worked in the Privy Council Office, going as high as becoming Director. He was also in the Office of the Official Opposition from 2009-2011, when Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals would have held that spot. He also spent more than a year in the Privacy Commissioner’s Office. The following year, he joined Facebook Canada, and has been there that spot ever since.

These lobbying targets should raise red flags. Chan worked for the Privy Council for years, and went pretty far. Now he lobbies them. And while he worked for the Office of the Official Opposition from 2009 to 2011, some of those same people would now be in the Prime Minister’s Office. After all, there was a change in Government, at least on paper.

The Canadian public has indirectly been subsidizing Facebook for a number of years. One way is by giving out money to other companies to purchase ad space. See here and here. And the intrigue grows still.

Facebook Inc. pledged Friday to spend $8 million to support news publishing in Canada, just days before a senior executive is to appear in Ottawa to face questions from MPs on matters including compensation of traditional media companies for news displayed on the tech giant’s platform.

Kevin Chan, head of public policy for Facebook Canada, is expected to be grilled by members of the standing committee on Canadian heritage about why Facebook controversially pulled news off its platform in Australia last month as that country was putting the finishing touches on legislation to guarantee publishers would be compensated for featured news.

Last week, Chan pledged $8 million to support news publishing in Canada. Would that not create a financial dependency on Facebook.

There were also questions surrounding the Facebook in Australia pulling news off its platform altogether. Interesting, that if things become “unworkable”, certain information can simply be removed.

4. Peter Donolo: LPC Political Operative

Peter Donolo has been a political operative for Liberals for a very long time. He was in the Office of the Official Opposition for Jean Chretien. When Chretien took power, Donolo went to the PMO. He was back in the Office of the Official Opposition for Michael Ignatieff, and worked Provincially with the Kathleen Wynne Liberals in Ontario. He has also as a marketer and lobbyist in the private sector.

As an aside, after losing badly in the 2011 Federal Election, Ignatieff went to work for George Soros and the Open Society. He is currently a Global Board Member.

What’s disturbing is the recent proliferation of taxpayer funded groups whose stated purpose is to “combat misinformation”. It creates an inherent conflict of interest, particularly when political hacks are running them. It comes across as providing cover for colleagues.

GROUP YEAR AMOUNT
Agence Science-Presse 2019-2020 $129,345
Apathy is Boring 2018-2019 $100,000
Apathy is Boring 2019-2020 $340,000
Boys and Girls Clubs of Canada 2019-2020 $460,000
Canadian News Media Association 2019-2020 $484,300
CIVIX 2018-2019 $275,000
CIVIX 2019-2020 $400,000
Encounters with Canada 2018-2019 $100,000
Quebec Professional Journalists 2019-2020 $202,570
Global Vision 2019-2020 $260,000
Historica Canada 2019-2020 $250,000
Institute for Canadian Citizenship 2019-2020 $250,000
Journalists for Human Rights 2019-2020 $250,691
Journalists for Human Rights July 14, 2020 $1,479,856
Magazines Canada 2019-2020 $63,000
McGill University 2019-2020 $1,196,205
MediaSmarts 2019-2020 $650,000
New Canadian Media 2019-2020 $66,517
Ryerson University 2019-2020 $290,250
Samara Centre for Democracy 2019-2020 $59,200
Sask Weekly Newspapers Ass’n 2019-2020 $70,055
Simon Fraser University 2019-2020 $175,000
Vubble Inc. Unboxed project 2019-2020 $299,000

As addressed in an earlier piece, numerous groups are getting handouts from the Federal Government — or rather, taxpayers — to act as fact-checkers. Problem is that the media and fact checkers are supposed to act as a counter balance to Government. Here, we have Government Operatives like Donolo running the show. Huge conflict of interest.

Peter Donolo is on the Board of CIVIX, as is Rachel Curran of Facebook. They are involved in pushing their version of democracy in Canada.

Donolo is also a Director at JHR, Journalists for Human Rights. Chad Rogers is as well, and he also works for Crestview Strategy, a lobbying firm hired by GAVI, and co-founded by Rob Silver. JHR’s mission includes providing services to combat “misinformation” around the coronavirus.

More grants from the Federal Government can be found HERE. CIVIX has gotten funding for years.

CIVIX Board Members
Francis LeBlanc – Chair
Former Executive Director, Canadian Association of Former Parliamentarians
Chris Wilkins – Past Chair
CEO, Edge Interactive
Robert Asselin
Senior Director, Public Policy, Blackberry
Megan Beretta
Policy Analyst, Canadian Digital Service
Rachel Curran
Public Policy Manager, Canada, Facebook
Peter Donolo
Vice-Chairman, Hill + Knowlton Strategies Canada
Dr. Elizabeth Dubois
Assistant Professor of Communication, University of Ottawa
Kathleen Monk
Principal, Earnscliffe Strategies

Donolo’s LinkedIn page leaves out his ties to CIVIX and Journalists for Human Rights (JHR). How strange.

Donolo indirectly runs a group called “Disinfowatch“. This is another self proclaimed fact checking group, controlled by Journalists for Human Rights, and the Koch-funded MacDonald-Laurier Institute.

5. Rachel Curran: Facebook, Harper Operative

Rachel Curran worked in the Prime Minister’s Office when Harper was in power. She also is a Board Member at CIVIX along with Peter Donolo. She also works for Facebook Canada. She has previously been a CBC pundit and a professional lobbyist at Wellington Advocacy. What an interesting career this has been.

While working in the PMO, Curran was frequently lobbied by many different special interest groups.

For more background on the collusion between politics, the media, and “fact-checkers”, check out this other piece on the subject.

6. Erin O’Toole: CPC, Ex-Facebook Lobbyist

Now, Chan and Donolo have ties to the Liberal Party of Canada, but what about the Conservative Party? Will they step in and raise meaningful questions?

Prior to getting into politics, Erin O’Toole worked for the (now defunct) law firm, Heenan Blaikie. Its former partners include Pierre Trudeau and Jean Chretien. O’Toole also engaged in lobbying on behalf of Facebook, something not discussed during the recent CPC leadership campaign. And while campaigning, he openly called for a “war footing“, and emergency measures.

As a side note: Roy Heenan, co-Founder of Heenan Blaikie, used to be the Head of the Trudeau Foundation.

7. Media Influence And Subsidies

(1) Unifor, Media, In Bed With Gov’t, $595M
(2) Government Subsidizes Media To Ensure Positive Coverage
(3) Aberdeen Publishing Takes Handouts, Ignores Real Issues
(4) More Periodicals Taking Grants, Parroting Gov’t Narrative
(5) Subsidized Fact-Check Outlets Run By Political Operatives
(6) Groups Funded By Tax Dollars To Combat “Misinformation”
(7) Even More Subsidies Canadian Outlets Are Dependent On
(8) DisinfoWatch Has Ties To Atlas Network/Koch, Liberal Party
(9) Media, Banks, CU, Getting CDA Emergency Wage Subsidies (CEWS)
(10) Advertising And Marketing In Promoting “Pandemic” Narrative
(11) NSERC/SSHRC/CIHR Grants In “Confidence”; Mandatory Vaxx

Just a thought, but perhaps the media and social media outlets in Canada aren’t all that fair and unbiased. Just putting that out there. Maybe those “pandemic bucks” go a long way towards ensuring cooperation.

Posted on

Digital Citizen Contribution Program: “Pandemic Bucks” To Fight Misinformation

Nothing screams dystopian nightmare quite like using tax dollars to deploy artificial intelligence to find ways to counter critics of the “pandemic” narrative. It’s not like the AI could be put to good use, or anything like that.

Now, many of these groups aren’t getting money specifically for this, but the same “disinformation” research could still be applied in most cases.

1. The Media Is Not Loyal To The Public

Truth is essential in society, but the situation in Canada is worse than people imagine. In Canada (and elsewhere), the mainstream media, periodicals, and fact-checkers are subsidized, though they deny it. Post Media controls most outlets in Canada, and many “independents” have ties to Koch/Atlas. Real investigative journalism is needed, and some pointers are provided.

2. How Your Tax Dollars Are Being Used

The Digital Citizen Contribution Program supports the priorities of the Digital Citizen Initiative by providing time-limited financial assistance for research and citizen-focused activities. The Program aims to support democracy and social cohesion in Canada by enhancing and/or supporting efforts to counter online disinformation and other online harms and threats.

The Government is handing out money to certain organizations to promote its version of responsible journalism. What could possibly go wrong with that?

The following organizations are eligible for funding:

  • a national, provincial, territorial, municipal, Indigenous, community or professional organization, society or association which has voluntarily associated itself for a not-for-profit purpose, and which has the mandate to represent its membership or community
  • a not-for-profit organization, including non-governmental or umbrella organizations, non-profit corporations, community groups, regulatory bodies or apprenticeship authorities, or associations serving the private sector
  • a university or educational institution
  • an individual researcher, acting in his or her personal capacity
  • a research institution with an established record in relevant field(s), intending to undertake work in a Canadian context
  • a for-profit Canadian and Canadian-owned institution with a record of developing and delivering programming, and performing research or related activities relevant to the goals of Canadian Heritage’s Digital Citizen Initiative, provided that the nature and the intent of the activity is non-commercial

Now, who’s getting the money?

NAME YEAR AMOUNT
Alex Wilner and Casey Babb Aug. 10, 2020 $9,900
Alperin, Juan P. Apr. 1, 2020 $20,000
Asian Environmental Association – HUA Foundation Apr. 1, 2020 $64,660
BILAL Community & Family Centre Aug. 15, 2020 $40,000
Calgary Animated Objects Society Aug. 1, 2020 $40,000
Centre for Democracy and Development Oct. 22, 2018 $49,420
The Centre For Israel And Jewish Affairs Sep. 1, 2020 $38,000
Côté, Catherine Mar. 22, 2020 $8,000
Chun, Wendy H.K. Apr. 1, 2020 $20,000
CIVIX Nov. 15, 2018 $23,000
Colasante, Tyler Jan. 1, 2020 $10,000
Concordia University Oct. 1, 2020 $39,270
Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, David Jones Dec. 17, 2019 $49,916
David Morin, Marie-Ève Carignan Dec. 4, 2020 $44,838
Digital Public Square Mar. 1, 2020 $679,176
Evans, Jennifer V. Apr. 1, 2020 $20,000
Fleerackers, Alice L. Jan. 1, 2020 $10,000
Gingras, Marie-Pier Jan. 1, 2020 $10,000
Grisdale, Sean E. Jan. 1, 2020 $10,000
Hodson, Jaigris N. Apr. 1, 2020 $20,000
Institute For Canadian Citizenship Mar. 24, 2020 $490,880
Institute For Democracy, Media & Culture Jul. 27, 2020 $35,750
Institute On Governance Oct. 1, 2020 $100,000
International Republican Institute Mar. 15, 2019 $2,973,531
Internews Network Mar. 19, 2020 $3,172,323
IRIS Communications Oct. 1, 2020 $99,500
JHR – Journalists for Human Rights Jun. 1, 2019 $250,691
JHR – Journalists for Human Rights Jul. 14, 2020 $1,479,856
Ketchum, Alexandra D. Mar. 22, 2020 $23,455
Kingdom Acts Foundation Sep. 1, 2020 $70,500
Lavigne, Mathieu Jan. 1, 2020 $10,000
Lennox, Rebecca Jan. 1, 2020 $10,000
Macewan University Nov. 1, 2020 $69,000
Mack, Amy C. Jan. 1, 2020 $10,000
Magazines Canada May 15, 2019 $63,000
Manchester Metropolitan University Feb. 1, 2020 $214,837
Matthews, Kyle Apr. 20, 2020 $33,377
McLevey, John V.P. Apr. 1, 2020 $20,000
Moisse, Katie Mar. 22, 2020 $13,417
Nathalie Furrer Aug. 10, 2020 $10,000
Nelson, Kim A. Mar. 22, 2020 $24,498
Neubauer, Robert J. Jan. 1, 2020 $10,000
PeaceGeeks Society Nov. 11, 2015 $46,200
Pennycook, Gordon R. Apr. 1, 2020 $20,000
QuantSpark Foundation Feb. 26, 2020 $1,155,622
Rupantar Oct. 28, 2018 $24,996
Ruslan Stefanov, Director, Jul. 3, 2018 $15,000
Ryerson University Apr. 1, 2019 $290,250
Ryerson University Jan. 1, 2020 $225,300
Ryerson University Sep. 18, 2020 $97,407
Science North Sep. 1, 2020 $40,000
Simon Fraser University Jan. 19, 2019 $28,750
Simon Fraser University – Int’l Cybercrime Research Oct. 1, 2020 $96,600
Taylor, Emily Jan. 1, 2020 $33,250
Trybun Jan. 21, 2019 $7,114
Young, Hilary A.N. Apr. 1, 2020 $20,000
York University Nov. 1, 2020 $99,956

This is what your tax dollars go towards. Check this link for general disinformation grants, this for propaganda, and this one for specific CV-19 disinfo grants. It’s worth pointing out that for much of the research, even though it may not list the “pandemic” specifically, the information learned could still be applied to it. Besides, the dates are pretty suspicious.

As discussed here, some “fact checking” groups like CIVIX and Journalists for Human Rights have extensive political ties, which call into question anything they do produce.

Another updated list is available from Newswire. Nice to see someone else addressing it.

3. Ryerson University’s Social Media Lab

As the outbreak of COVID-19 continues to spread across the world, so too does the flow of information and misinformation related to the virus. In a recent announcement by the Government of Canada, external link, researchers at the Ted Rogers School of Management’s Social Media Lab, in collaboration with researchers at Royal Roads University, received funding to examine the spread of digital misinformation related to the coronavirus. The study seeks to mitigate the spread of misinformation, stigma and fear through education.

The study, Inoculating Against an Infodemic: Microlearning Interventions to Address CoV Misinformation, will be a two-year study that aims to develop online learning interventions to improve people’s knowledge, beliefs and behaviours related to COVID-19.

Researchers at the Social Media Lab have already created a portal, external link designed to track and combat misinformation related to COVID-19.

Ryerson University has started a 2 year program designed to track “misinformation” trends, and to look for ways to counter it online. Of course, if it contradicts the official narrative, it must be tracked and countered.

4. Concordia University’s Disinfo Research

The event will be livestreamed on the Montreal Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies’ Facebook and YouTube pages.

The Canadian Coalition to Counter COVID Digital Disinformation is a project organized by the Montreal Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies with funding from the Department of Canadian Heritage’s Digital Citizens Initiative. The team is working to enhance Canadian citizens’ digital literacy and resiliency as they come in contact with misinformation and disinformation relating to COVID-19.

As part of this work, a series of digital townhalls will be held on issues like foreign interference, conspiracy theories and fake news. Stay tuned for more events hosted on these topics.

Concordia took nearly $40,000 to undertake this effort in researching and ultimately combating “misinformation”. Note: institutions like this never seem to question whether the narratives they push is itself fake news. It’s comical.

5. Financing Your Own Brainwashing

Not only does the Government donate to newspapers, periodicals, and other media, but it finances research into combatting misinformation. What this (really) means is that finding ways to prevent the truth from coming out.

And if that doesn’t work, Government can just pass laws to ban opinions it doesn’t like. This has been proposed for nearly a year now. Be aware, that if the efforts fail with the various Government programs, it’s possible different views will just be legislated away.

(1) https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/online-disinformation/digital-citizen-contribution-program.html
(2) https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/online-disinformation/digital-citizen-contribution-program.html#a2
(3) https://search.open.canada.ca/en/gc/
(4) https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/ongoing-support-for-research-and-media-literacy-projects-as-canada-continues-to-fight-online-disinformation-816455316.html
(5) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-46-dominic-leblanc-proposes-law-to-ban-misinformation-about-virus/

Posted on

TSCE #12(C): Twitter Sued For (Allegedly) Refusing To Remove Child Exploitation Material

Twitter is being sued in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California. It’s alleged that Twitter refused to take down pornographic material, even after becoming aware that minors were involved, and they were exploited. The site, endsexualexploitation.org, posted a copy of the complaint. The names were redacted in the papers to protect the identities of the family.

Just a reminder: at this point, it is just accusations against Twitter.

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

Serious issues like smuggling or trafficking are routinely avoided in public discourse. Also important are the links between open borders and human smuggling; between ideology and exploitation; between tolerance and exploitation; between abortion and organ trafficking; or between censorship and complicity. Mainstream media will also never get into the organizations who are pushing these agendas, nor the complicit politicians. These topics don’t exist in isolation, and are interconnected.

2. Important Links

Twitter CP Remained Up Lawsuit Filed Statement Of Claim
Endsexualexploitation,org Website Link
Interview With Epoch Times — American Thought Leaders
Twitter T.O.S.: Child Sexual Exploitation Policies
https://archive.is/PVP1w
Twitter Medical Misinformation Policies
https://archive.is/RLwRi
Twitter Misleading Information Updates
https://archive.is/zoqrD

3. Epoch Times Interviews Plaintiff’s Lawyer

Lisa Haba, lawyer for the victim, gave an interview with Jan Jekielek of Epoch Times a few days ago. This is well worth a watch. They bring up several interesting topics, including using Section 230 as a legal defense.

4. Quotes From The Lawsuit Against Twitter

This is a civil action for damages under the federal Trafficking Victims’ Protection Reauthorization Act (“TVPRA”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591 and 1595, Failure to Report Child Sexual Abuse Material, 18 U.S.C. § 2258A, Receipt and Distribution of Child Pornography, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A, and related state law claims arising from Defendant’s conduct when it knowingly hosted sexual exploitation material, including child sex abuse material (referred to in some instances as child pornography), and allowed human trafficking and the dissemination of child sexual abuse material to continue on its platform, therefore profiting from the harmful and exploitive material and the traffic it draws.

1. Sex trafficking is a form of slavery that illegally exists in this world—both throughout the United States and globally—and traffickers have been able to operate under cover of the law through online platforms. Likewise, those platforms have profited from the posting and dissemination of trafficking and the exploitative images and videos associated with it.

2. The dissemination of child sexual abuse material (CSAM) has become a global scourge since the explosion of the internet, which allows those that seek to trade in this material to equally operate under cover of the law through online platforms.

3. This lawsuit seeks to shine a light on how Twitter has enabled and profited from CSAM on its platform, choosing profits over people, money over the safety of children, and wealth at the expense of human freedom and human dignity.

4. With over 330 million users, Twitter is one of the largest social media companies in the world. It is also one of the most prolific distributors of material depicting the sexual abuse and exploitation of children.

28. Twitter explains how it makes money from advertising services as follows:
.
We generate most of our advertising revenue by selling our
Promoted Products. Currently, our Promoted Products consist of
the following:
.
• Promoted Tweets. Promoted Tweets, which are labeled as
“promoted,” appear within a timeline, search results or profile
pages just like an ordinary Tweet regardless of device, whether it
be desktop or mobile. Using our proprietary algorithms and
understanding of the interests of each account, we can deliver
Promoted Tweets that are intended to be relevant to a particular
account. We enable our advertisers to target an audience based on
an individual account’s interest graph. Our Promoted Tweets are
pay-for-performance or pay-for-impression delivered advertising
that are priced through an auction. Our Promoted Tweets include
objective-based features that allow advertisers to pay only for the
types of engagement selected by the advertisers, such as Tweet
engagements (e.g., Retweets, replies and likes), website clicks,
mobile application installs or engagements, obtaining new
followers, or video views.

65. In 2017, when John Doe was 13-14 years old, he engaged in a dialog with someone he thought was an individual person on the communications application Snapchat. That person or persons represented to John Doe that they were a 16-year-old female and he believed that person went his school.

66. After conversing, the person or persons (“Traffickers”) interacting with John Doe exchanged nude photos on Snapchat.

67. After he did so the correspondence changed to blackmail. Now the Traffickers wanted more sexually graphic pictures and videos of John Doe, and recruited, enticed, threatened and solicited John Doe by telling him that if he did not provide this material, then the nude pictures of himself that he had already sent would be sent to his parents, coach, pastor, and others in his community.

68. Initially John Doe complied with the Traffickers’ demands. He was told to provide videos of himself performing sexual acts. He was also told to include another person in the videos, to which he complied.

69. Because John Doe was (and still is) a minor and the pictures and videos he was threatened and coerced to produce included graphic sexual depictions of himself, including depictions of him engaging in sexual acts with another minor, the pictures and videos constitute CSAM under the law.

70. The Traffickers also attempted to meet with him in person. Fortunately, an in person meeting never took place.

85. John Doe submitted a picture of his drivers’ license to Twitter proving that he is a minor. He emailed back the same day saying:

91. On January 28, 2020, Twitter sent John Doe an email that read as follows:
.
Hello,
.
Thanks for reaching out. We’ve reviewed the content, and didn’t find a violation of our policies, so no action will be taken at this time.
.
If you believe there’s a potential copyright infringement, please start a new report.
.
If the content is hosted on a third-party website, you’ll need to contact that website’s support team to report it.
.
Your safety is the most important thing, and if you believe you are in danger, we encourage you to contact your local authorities. Taking screenshots of the Tweets is often a good idea, and we have more information available for law enforcement about our policies.
.
Thanks,
Twitter

In short, the victim met someone online pretending to be someone else, and got him to send nude photos under false pretenses. The teen — which is still a minor today — was then blackmailed into sending more.

Some of this was posted on Twitter. Despite verifying the age and identity of the victim, they refused to remove the content, saying that they found no violations in their terms of services. It was only after Homeland Security stepped in, that Twitter finally complied.

Interestingly, almost half of the complaint against Twitter consists of copies of its own rules, policies, and terms of service. Twitter has rules on the books to prevent exactly this type of thing, but (allegedly) refused to act when it was brought to their attention.

The comment about “potential copyright infringement” comes across as a slap in the face. That was clearly never the concern of the child.

Twitter has not filed a response, so we’ll have to see what happens next.

5. Current Twitter Policy On Exploiting Minors

Child sexual exploitation policy
Overview
October 2020
.
We have a zero-tolerance child sexual exploitation policy on Twitter.
.
Twitter has zero tolerance towards any material that features or promotes child sexual exploitation, one of the most serious violations of the Twitter Rules. This may include media, text, illustrated, or computer-generated images. Regardless of the intent, viewing, sharing, or linking to child sexual exploitation material contributes to the re-victimization of the depicted children. This also applies to content that may further contribute to victimization of children through the promotion or glorification of child sexual exploitation. For the purposes of this policy, a minor is any person under the age of 18.

What is in violation of this policy?
Any content that depicts or promotes child sexual exploitation including, but not limited to:
-visual depictions of a child engaging in sexually explicit or sexually suggestive acts;
-illustrated, computer-generated or other forms of realistic depictions of a human child in a sexually explicit context, or engaging in sexually explicit acts;
-sexualized commentaries about or directed at a known or unknown minor; and
-links to third-party sites that host child sexual exploitation material.

The following behaviors are also not permitted:
-sharing fantasies about or promoting engagement in child sexual exploitation;
-expressing a desire to obtain materials that feature child sexual exploitation;
-recruiting, advertising or expressing an interest in a commercial sex act involving a child, or in harboring and/or transporting a child for sexual purposes;
–sending sexually explicit media to a child;
-engaging or trying to engage a child in a sexually explicit conversation;
-trying to obtain sexually explicit media from a child or trying to engage a child in sexual activity through blackmail or other incentives;
-identifying alleged victims of childhood sexual exploitation by name or image; and
-promoting or normalizing sexual attraction to minors as a form of identity or sexual orientation.

At least on paper, Twitter has very strong policies against the sort of behaviour that is outlined in the California lawsuit. It’s baffling why Twitter wouldn’t immediately remove the content. This isn’t the hill to die on for any company.

Twitter can, and does, suspend accounts for insulting pedophiles and making comments about death or castration. Yet, this incident wasn’t against their terms of service.

6. Title 47, CH 5, SUBCHAPTER II Part I § 230

(c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
(1)Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

(2) Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]
(d) Obligations of interactive computer service
A provider of interactive computer service shall, at the time of entering an agreement with a customer for the provision of interactive computer service and in a manner deemed appropriate by the provider, notify such customer that parental control protections (such as computer hardware, software, or filtering services) are commercially available that may assist the customer in limiting access to material that is harmful to minors. Such notice shall identify, or provide the customer with access to information identifying, current providers of such protections.

The “Section 230” which is commonly referenced refers to the 1996 Communications Decency Act. This gave platforms — both existing, and ones that came later — significant legal protections. They were considered platforms, not publishers.

The distinction between platforms and publishers seems small, but is significant. Platforms are eligible for certain benefits and tax breaks, but are cannot (except in limited circumstances), be held liable. Publishers, however, can be much more discriminatory about what they allow to be shown.

The wording is such that it does give wiggle room for publishers to apply their own take on what material is considered offensive.

It has been suggested that Twitter could rely on its Section 230 protections, but that would not shield it from penalties for criminal actions. The allegations made in this lawsuit are not just civil, but criminal in nature.

While Twitter may not be liable for everything that goes on, this particular incident was brought to their attention. They asked for identification and age verification, received it, and then decided there was no violation to their terms of service. So claiming ignorance would be extremely difficult.

7. Loss On Social Media Anonymity?!

One issue not discussed as much is a potential consequence of legal actions against platforms like Twitter. Will this lead to the loss of anonymous accounts? Might identity verification come as an unintended consequence?

While no decent person wants children — or anyone — to be take advantage of, there is a certain security knowing that online and private life can be separated. This is the era of doxing, harassment and stalking, and as such, there are legitimate concerns for many people. This is especially true for those discussing more controversial and politically incorrect topics.

Do we really want things to go the way of Parler, who began demanding Government issued I.D., and then had a “data breach”?

8. Twitter Policies On “Medical Misinformation”

https://twitter.com/TwitterSafety/status/1267986500030955520
https://twitter.com/Policy/status/1278095924330364935
http://archive.is/fHoLx
https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/product/2020/updating-our-approach-to-misleading-information.html

This topic is brought up to show how selective Twitter’s commitment is to free speech, and to dissenting viewpoints. Even a charitable interpretation would be that there is political bias in how the rules and standardds are applied.

Strangely, Twitter takes a more thorough approach to monitoring and removing tweets and accounts for promoting “medical misinformation”. Despite there being many valid questions and concerns about this “pandemic”, far more of that is censored. Odd priorities.

Yet child porn and exploiting minors can remain up?

Posted on

Omidyar Group; Luminate; Reset; Reset Australia; Push For A Misinformation Ban

The Omidyar Group, started by e-Bay Founder, Pierre Omidyar, is involved in many areas of social change. To address the elephant in the room: it does appear there are legitimate areas that the Omidyar Group and its many affiliates are involved with. However, there is one in particular that needs to be looked at. NGOs are pushing to ban what they call “misinformation” around the so-called “pandemic”.

1. Important Links

https://www.omidyargroup.com/
https://luminategroup.com/
https://www.sandlerfoundation.org/
https://www.fidelitycharitable.org/
https://twitter.com/ausreset/status/1353402187762847746
https://au.reset.tech/
https://www.reset.tech/about/
https://www.reset.tech/people/
https://archive.is/AuwcW
https://www.weforum.org/people/pia-mancini

2. Omidyar Group: Finance Independent Media

Omidyar Group was launched by Pierre Omidyar (who founded e-Bay in 1995), and his Wife, Pam. This NGO has several interests, including promoting a “more informed citizenry”, which sounds fine on the surface. The organizations that Omidyar funds include:

  • Democracy Fund
  • First Look Media
  • Flourish
  • Hopelab
  • Humanity United
  • Imaginable Futures
  • Luminate
  • Omidyar Network
  • Omidyar Network India
  • Ulupono Initiative

The Democracy Fund
The Democracy Fund’s Public Square program invests in innovations and institutions that are reinventing local media and expanding the “public square” to ensure that people can access diverse sources of information and different points of view. The Public Square program supports efforts to combat misinformation deepen individuals’ engagement in civic life though new venues for reasoned debate and deliberation.

First Look Media
First Look Media – a bold independent media company that empowers the most ambitious voices in journalism, arts and entertainment. Launched by eBay founder and philanthropist, Pierre Omidyar, First Look Media today operates across several areas, including an entertainment studio, Topic, which develops, produces and finances feature films, documentaries, television and digital content; the newly launched digital storytelling destination, Topic.com; the award-winning investigative journalism outlet, The Intercept; the critically acclaimed documentary film unit, Field of Vision; and the popular political satire cartoon, The Nib. The company’s first feature film, “Spotlight,” won the 2016 Academy Award® for Best Picture.

Honolulu Civil Beat
Honolulu Civil Beat is an award-winning investigative and watchdog online media enterprise aimed at informing and engaging community members through public affairs and investigative reporting on topics of critical importance to Hawaii.

Humanity United
Humanity United engages and supports media partners, reporters and storytellers to raise awareness and educate key audiences about important social issues. Humanity United supports The Guardian’s media platform titled “Modern Day Slavery in Focus,” a series investigating human trafficking and exploitation around the world.

Luminate
Luminate supports organizations that are committed to defending a vibrant, free press that uncovers the truth and holds power to account. It also works to enable people to shape the decisions that affect their lives and access the services they need, with a focus on those groups that are marginalised or underserved.

Omidyar Network India
Omidyar Network India supports independent journalism that reports on issues concerning citizens and civil society through support such as equity investments in new business models.

The World Post
An advocate for quality journalism, Pierre Omidyar serves on the editorial board of the World Post, a platform for understanding current events through a global lens.

To be clear, there is nothing wrong with bringing new voices into the public discussion. Viewpoint diversity is a great thing. However, when such initiatives are used to shut down or gaslight others, there is a serious problem. Omidyar funds Luminate, who in turn funds Reset. It’s unclear if the goals got corrupted, or if this was always the purpose.

It’s also a bit misleading to think that these outfits are really independent, considering they are controlled by the same people.

3. Luminate: Fund For Public Interest Media

Luminate funds and supports non-profit and for-profit organisations and advocates for policies and actions that can drive change. We prioritise delivering impact in four connected areas that underpin strong societies: Civic Empowerment, Data & Digital Rights, Financial Transparency, and Independent Media.

A free press gives people the information they need to participate in the issues shaping their lives. But press freedom is at a low ebb. Research by Freedom House shows that less than 20 percent of the world now benefits from a truly independent media. Journalists are being imprisoned and killed for reporting the truth, while ‘fake news laws’, ostensibly created to prevent misinformation, are instead being used to censor and silence.

Changes in the media market are contributing to the crisis. Dominant ad-driven models reward tech platforms such as Google and Facebook over publications and journalists. Driven by clicks, these models often favour sensationalism over considered reportage, contributing to declining trust in the media, the spread of misinformation, and the increasing polarisation of communities.

A world without depth, independence, and plurality in the media is vulnerable to corruption and authoritarianism. Now, more than ever, we need a strong fourth estate, free from vested interests.

Thankfully, we are seeing shoots of recovery. Innovative business models, such as membership-driven news sites, are emerging that can support editorially independent media outlets. These models are focused on building trust with audiences and improving coverage representation. Meanwhile, data scientists and journalists are increasingly collaborating to uncover stories of public importance hidden within vast tracts of newly available data. This represents an exciting wave of innovation in independent media.

What we do
We support independent media wherever press freedom is under threat. We do this by investing in courageous investigative journalism, fact-checking organisations, and financial models able to support news outlets free from vested interests.

While all of this sounds fine, the devil is in the details. It all really depends if the groups getting these funds are interested in objective truth, or whether they are interested in promoting a narrative they have decided is truth. One such group they fund is Reset (which also funds Reset Australia).

Luminate is in control of many groups, which again, leads to questions about how independent any of this is.

4. Reset’s Censorship Agenda

We are an initiative engaged in programmatic work on technology and democracy. We provide grants and contracts while working alongside partners with a shared policy, technology, and advocacy goal in countries with immediate opportunities for change. We operate internationally to ensure that the commercial interests of Big Tech companies are compatible with the values of robust and resilient democracies.

We must reset the rules to stop Big Tech companies profiting from public harm. We can redirect their ambition and innovation to achieve better goals. Code can be changed, markets can be regulated, democracy can be strengthened.
.
Every other major industry – automotive, pharmaceutical, telecommunications, banking – must follow rules that protect the public interest. The Big Tech companies which now have a huge impact on so much of our daily lives should be no different. Yes, businesses should pursue commercial success. But they should do well by doing good.
.
We believe the internet can once again become a force for good, not a marketplace for manipulation by the highest bidder.

We work to combat digital threats to democracy in two ways.
.
First, we develop and promote a public policy agenda that sets fair rules and standards for Big Tech companies. Our integrated and comprehensive strategy drives policy reform across content moderation, data privacy, competition, elections, security, taxation, education and public service media. We support research that builds the case for change.
.
Second, we work to develop and communicate a vision of the internet that serves democracy – explaining problems, offering solutions, prototyping new technologies and engaging in education and activism.

To make this clear, Reset doesn’t put forward good ideas that will better shape how society is run. There would be nothing wrong with this. Instead, Reset wants to change the rules of the internet — namely shut down dissenting views — in order to ensure that their ideas win out. This is censorship, plain and simple.

Luminate, a major donor prides itself on funding independent media. Makes one wonder if they have no idea about this, or they know, but support the agenda.

5. Mancini/Wood, World Economic Forum

Pia Mancini
Democracy activist, open source technology sustainer, co-founder & CEO at Open Collective and Chair of DemocracyEarth Foundation. Pia worked in politics in Argentina and developed technology for democracy around the world. Y Combinator Alum, Forum of Young Global Leaders (World Economic Forum), globe-trotter, and Roma’s mum

Poppy Wood
As a consultant on public policy, Poppy leads on Reset’s UK policy and political strategy. Combining her expertise in policy and technology, Poppy’s mission is to maximise Reset’s impact in the UK, and driving its powerful policy agenda. As well as having run multiple technology advisory businesses, supporting some of the world’s leading technology companies and start-ups, Poppy also worked in Downing Street for two years where she was an advisor on public appointments and tech policy. Poppy is a World Economic Forum “Global Shaper” and in 2018 was recognised in Brummell Magazine’s “Ones to Watch” list celebrating London’s high-potential talent.

Interesting that 2 women pushing to prevent criticism (globally), of “misinformation” surrounding the coronavirus are also part of the World Economic Forum, which is promoting lockdowns.

6. Reset Australia, Branch Of RESET

We work to raise awareness and advocate for better policy to address digital threats to Australian democracy in two ways:
.
First, we develop and promote a public policy agenda that sets fair rules and standards for Big Tech companies that align with democratic values in Australia. Our integrated strategy drives policy reform across content moderation, data privacy, elections, security, child safety and protection from foreign interference. We support research that builds the case for change.
.
Second, we work to build public support for an internet that serves democracy – explaining the issues, co-creating solutions and building public support for change.
.
We are an Australian affiliate of Reset, an initiative working to counter digital threats to democracy across the world. Reset Australia is a not-for-profit charity registered in Australia with close ties to our international partner. We share a common mission and organisational values. Our teams are coordinated in our goals and activities, and we benefit from the knowledge, relationships, and financial resources of Reset’s international network.

Just like their parent company, Reset Australia seems to have little interest in searching for truth. Instead, the media in general — and social media in particular — must change their behaviour in order to comply with how things ought to be. And who is running the organization?

Simon Goff
Simon has deep experience working on some of the world’s most complex problems – crafting new ways to channel the power of culture toward positive social change. Through his career he has built unique partnerships to harness the potential of powerful storytelling to mobilise people to action. He is currently Managing Director and Partner at Purpose, where he has led projects with clients including The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the LEGO Foundation, the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation, Google, Unilever, the World Health Organization, the Red Cross, AGL, and The Fred Hollows Foundation on issues including early childhood development, digital rights, climate change, avoidable blindness, and women’s empowerment.

Ben Scott
Ben is executive director at Reset, where he is responsible for strategic direction, overseeing the coordination of policy, technology and civic engagement work, providing expert counsel on policy development and advocacy. His mission is to push financial, knowledge and relational resources into a global network of organisations working to achieve shared aims. Before starting Reset, he co-led the Stiftung Neue Verantwortung (SNV) in Berlin, helping develop the organisation into a leading tech policy voice in German politics. He was also a Senior Adviser to New America in Washington DC, helping design the Public Interest Technology Initiative, and led the technology policy advisory group for the 2016 Clinton US presidential campaign.

Amit Singh
Amit Singh is a consultant specialising in economics and policy and advises clients in financial services, government and the tech sector. He is a managing director at the consultancy, AlphaBeta. He was previously head of global economic and work policy at Uber in San Francisco. He has also served as senior economic adviser to two Australian Prime Ministers. Earlier in his career, he worked as a capital markets lawyer and co-founded a consumer aggregator with over 350,000 members. He has delivered papers and presentations on digital marketplaces and the future of work at the OECD and ILO.

These aren’t some nobodies here. These people have real connections, and some real political clout. So, if they want to shut down criticism of the Covid-19 narrative, under the guise of “fighting misinformation”, they have a real chance to make it law.

7. Reset Australia’s Censorship Drive

The above screenshots of Reset Australia’s Twitter feed is just a small sample of that they are tweeting and retweeting. They are clearly, unambiguously, and repeatedly calling for censorship under the guise of public safety.

Posted on

Bill C-11: Digital Charter Implementation Act Of Canada

Remember that proposed Digital Charter from 2019, in response to a shooting in New Zealand? Well, it’s finally come to Canada. Also, this sounds silly, but is DCIA a euphamism for “Dee CIA”?

1. Free Speech Is Under Constant Threat

Check here for the series free speech. It’s a crucial topic, and is typically intertwined with other categories. Topic include: hate speech laws, Digital Cooperation; the IGF, or Internet Governance Forum; ex-Liberal Candidate Richard Lee; the Digital Charter; Dominic LeBlanc’s proposal. There is also collusion, done by UNESCO, more UNESCO, Facebook, Google, and Twitter lobbying.

2. The Media Is Not Loyal To The Public

Truth is essential in society, but the situation in Canada is worse than people imagine. In Canada (and elsewhere), the mainstream media and fact-checkers are subsidized, though they deny it. Post Media controls most outlets in Canada, and many “independents” have ties to Koch/Atlas. Real investigative journalism is needed, and some pointers are provided.

3. Important Links

The Christchurch Call
Fact Sheet: Digital Charter Implementation Act
https://archive.is/0QioZ
Bill C-10: CRTC Amending Broadcast Act
Bill C-11 Introduced As HoC Legislation (November 2020)
Office Of The Lobbying Commissioner Of Canada
Mastercard’s Lobbying Information
Visa Canada’s Lobbying Information
American Express Canada’s Lobbying Information
PayPal’s Lobbying Information
GlaxoSmithKline’s Lobbying Information

4. Digital Charter Bait-And-Switch

Originally, the proposed “Digital Charter” was formed as part of the Christchurch Call, in response to a mass shooting in New Zealand on March 15, 2019. This was promoted as fighting violent extremism. However, the DC Implementation Act seems to be much more broadly applied.

5. Pitching The Digital Charter Implementation Act

What does the Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2020 mean for me?
.
[A] Meaningful consent: Modernized consent rules would ensure that individuals have the plain-language information they need to make meaningful choices about the use of their personal information.
.
[B] Data mobility: To further improve their control, individuals would have the right to direct the transfer of their personal information from one organization to another. For example, individuals could direct their bank to share their personal information with another financial institution.
.
[C] Disposal of personal information and withdrawal of consent: The accessibility of information online makes it hard for individuals to control their online identity. The legislation would allow individuals to request that organizations dispose of personal information and, in most cases, permit individuals to withdraw consent for the use of their information.
.
[D] Algorithmic transparency: The CPPA contains new transparency requirements that apply to automated decision-making systems like algorithms and artificial intelligence. Businesses would have to be transparent about how they use such systems to make significant predictions, recommendations or decisions about individuals. Individuals would also have the right to request that businesses explain how a prediction, recommendation or decision was made by an automated decision-making system and explain how the information was obtained.
.
[E] De-identified information: The practice of removing direct identifiers (such as a name) from personal information is becoming increasingly common, but the rules that govern how this information is then used are not clear. The legislation will clarify that this information must be protected and that it can be used without an individual’s consent only under certain circumstances.

All of these items sound perfectly reasonable on the surface. Who WOULDN’T want greater privacy and transparency? Reading a bit further on the webpage, it becomes a bit concerning.

Simplifying consent: In the digital economy, the use of personal information is often core to the delivery of a product or service, and consumers can reasonably expect that their information will be used for this purpose. Currently, organizations are required to seek consent for such uses, making privacy policies longer and less accessible and creating burden. The legislation would remove the burden of having to obtain consent when that consent does not provide any meaningful privacy protection.

Data for good: Greater data sharing and access between the public and private sectors can help to solve some of our most important challenges in fields such as public health, infrastructure and environmental protection. The legislation would allow businesses to disclose de-identified data to public entities (under certain circumstances) for socially beneficial purposes.

Recognition of codes of practice and certification systems: To help organizations understand their obligations under the CPPA and demonstrate compliance, the legislation would allow organizations to ask the Privacy Commissioner to approve codes of practice and certification systems that set out rules for how the CPPA applies in certain activities, sectors or business models.

So the requirement to obtain consent can be removed if the consent “would not provide any meaningful privacy protection”? What standards would be applied to determine if it’s meaningful? Or would it all be subjective?

Greater sharing of data between public and private sectors? Such as what? Bank records? Health information? Political beliefs? And coupled with watering down the need for consent, that’s unsettling.

It would allow also allow for private organizations to contact the Privacy Commissioner and ask to have certain practices permitted. Interesting.

6. Digital Charter IA Guts Privacy

Exceptions to Requirement for Consent
Business Operations
Business activities
18 (1) An organization may collect or use an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent if the collection or use is made for a business activity described in subsection (2) and
(a) a reasonable person would expect such a collection or use for that activity; and
(b) the personal information is not collected or used for the purpose of influencing the individual’s behaviour or decisions.
,
List of activities
(2) Subject to the regulations, the following activities are business activities for the purpose of subsection (1):
(a) an activity that is necessary to provide or deliver a product or service that the individual has requested from the organization;
(b) an activity that is carried out in the exercise of due diligence to prevent or reduce the organization’s commercial risk;
(c) an activity that is necessary for the organization’s information, system or network security;
(d) an activity that is necessary for the safety of a product or service that the organization provides or delivers;
(e) an activity in the course of which obtaining the individual’s consent would be impracticable because the organization does not have a direct relationship with the individual; and
(f) any other prescribed activity.
.
Transfer to service provider
19 An organization may transfer an individual’s personal information to a service provider without their knowledge or consent.
.
De-identification of personal information
20 An organization may use an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent to de-identify the information.
.
Research and development
21 An organization may use an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent for the organization’s internal research and development purposes, if the information is de-identified before it is used.

Think that’s bad? It’s about to get even worse. More exceptions to the requirement for consent are written into Bill C-11. It’s like the Do-Not-Call lists about 15-20 years ago. Is there anything that doesn’t make the list of exceptions?

Information produced in employment, business or profession
23 An organization may collect, use or disclose an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent if it was produced by the individual in the course of their employment, business or profession and the collection, use or disclosure is consistent with the purposes for which the information was produced.
.
Employment relationship — federal work, undertaking or business
24 An organization that operates a federal, work or business may collect, use or disclose an individual’s personal information without their consent if
(a) the collection, use or disclosure is necessary to establish, manage or terminate an employment relationship between the organization and the individual in connection with the operation of a federal work, undertaking or business; and
(b) the organization has informed the individual that the personal information will be or may be collected, used or disclosed for those purposes.
.
Disclosure to lawyer or notary
25 An organization may disclose an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent to a lawyer or, in Quebec, a lawyer or notary, who is representing the organization.

How is any of this fighting violent extremism?

An organization can share a person’s personal information –without their knowledge or consent — if they deem it necessary for their business functions. They can also share the data of 3rd parties, if they don’t have a direct business relationship with that person.

Organizations can provide (sell?) data to research and marketing firms, with the caveat being that items that would identify a person must be removed. However, even with that, people can be re-identified from partial profiles.

Employers and Governments can also share a person’s private information without their knowledge or consent if it’s regarded as needed in their business operations. What else?

Statistical or scholarly study or research
35 An organization may disclose an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent if
(a) the disclosure is made for statistical purposes or for scholarly study or research purposes and those purposes cannot be achieved without disclosing the information;
(b) it is impracticable to obtain consent; and
(c) the organization informs the Commissioner of the disclosure before the information is disclosed.
.
Records of historic or archival importance
36 An organization may disclose an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent to an institution whose functions include the conservation of records of historic or archival importance, if the disclosure is made for the purpose of such conservation.
.
Disclosure after period of time
37 An organization may disclose an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent after the earlier of
(a) 100 years after the record containing the information was created, and
(b) 20 years after the death of the individual.
.
Journalistic, artistic or literary purposes
38 An organization may collect an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent if the collection is solely for journalistic, artistic or literary purposes.
.
Socially beneficial purposes
39 (1) An organization may disclose an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent if
(a) the personal information is de-identified before the disclosure is made;
(b) the disclosure is made to
(i) a government institution or part of a government institution in Canada,
(ii) a health care institution, post-secondary educational institution or public library in Canada,
(iii) any organization that is mandated, under a federal or provincial law or by contract with a government institution or part of a government institution in Canada, to carry out a socially beneficial purpose, or
(iv) any other prescribed entity; and
(c) the disclosure is made for a socially beneficial purpose.
.
Definition of socially beneficial purpose
(2) For the purpose of this section, socially beneficial purpose means a purpose related to health, the provision or improvement of public amenities or infrastructure, the protection of the environment or any other prescribed purpose.

As long as it’s claimed that the information was needed for research, historical work, some vaguely-defined social benefit, personal information can be disclosed without the person’s knowledge or consent. They do mention stripping the information from details that would lead to the identity of the person, but it’s still easy to reestablish who it was.

“Impractical to obtain consent” refers to companies disclosing person data not of THEIR customers, but the customers of other people. In fact, an obvious loophole is not to do any of this yourself, but simply to partner with another organization who can do the dirty work.

And after 20 years after a person’s death, information can be disclosed anyway. No reason or pretense is needed to pretend to justify it.

Now we get to disclosures to Government Institutions. Presumably, this was the original content considered with the Digital Charter.

7. DCIA: Disclosure To Government Institutions

Disclosures to Government Institutions
.
Administering law
43 An organization may disclose an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent to a government institution or part of a government institution that has made a request for the information, identified its lawful authority to obtain the information and indicated that the disclosure is requested for the purpose of administering federal or provincial law.
.
Law enforcement — request of government institution
44 An organization may disclose an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent to a government institution or part of a government institution that has made a request for the information, identified its lawful authority to obtain the information and indicated that the disclosure is requested for the purpose of enforcing federal or provincial law or law of a foreign jurisdiction, carrying out an investigation relating to the enforcement of any such law or gathering intelligence for the purpose of enforcing any such law.
.
Contravention of law — initiative of organization
45 An organization may on its own initiative disclose an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent to a government institution or a part of a government institution if the organization has reasonable grounds to believe that the information relates to a contravention of federal or provincial law or law of a foreign jurisdiction that has been, is being or is about to be committed.
.
Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act
46 An organization may disclose an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent to the government institution referred to in section 7 of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act as required by that section.
.
Request by government institution — national security, defence or international affairs
47 (1) An organization may disclose an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent to a government institution or part of a government institution that has made a request for the information, identified its lawful authority to obtain the information and indicated that it suspects that the information relates to national security, the defence of Canada or the conduct of international affairs.
Collection
(2) An organization may collect an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent for the purpose of making a disclosure under subsection (1).
Use
(3) An organization may use an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent if it was collected under subsection (2).
.
Initiative of organization — national security, defence or international affairs
48 (1) An organization may on its own initiative disclose an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent to a government institution or a part of a government institution if the organization suspects that the information relates to national security, the defence of Canada or the conduct of international affairs.
Collection
(2) An organization may collect an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent for the purpose of making a disclosure under subsection (1).
Use
(3) An organization may use an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent if it was collected under subsection (2).

The Government may collect personal information without your knowledge or consent if it believes (or claims to believe), that it’s done for a legitimate purpose, or may help with the investigation of Government affairs.

Furthermore, institutions can, on their own free will, simply choose to hand over personal information without knowledge or consent. All that is required is a vague standard that they believe a crime has been, or is about to be committed.

Getting back to the topic of the Christchurch Call: the original purpose of the proposed Digital Charter was to combat online extremism, before violence broke out. Under this Bill, can Governments simply seize data, or can companies just provide it on a whim? Could having incorrect opinions be viewed as a public security risk?

Could telling the truth about the Covid-19 hoax be grounds for detaining or de-platforming people, under the guise of “public health and safety”?

8. Lobbying Registry Search: “Digital Charter”

Entering “Digital Charter” into the Lobbing Registry website flags 84 hits: 80 registrations, and 4 communications reports. Let’s take a look into that.

The 4 communications were with Facebook Canada, and took place between April 15, 2020, and December 17, 2020. They involved: Facebook, the Prime Minister’s Office and the Policy Advisor on Canada’s Digital Charter.

Small aside: Official Opposition Leader, Erin O’Toole. was a lobbyist for Facebook when he worked for the law firm, Heenan Blaikie. Could explain why he’s silent on this issue.

9. More “Digital Charter” In Lobbying Registry

Want to do banking of rely on credit for your business or personal life? It may become much harder if these institutions refuse to associate with you, for whatever reason.

10. GlaxoSmithKline, “Digital Charter” Lobbying

Seems pretty strange that GSK (GlaxoSmithKline), is involved in discussions concerning the Digital Charter. On the surface, it also looks like a conflict of interest.

11. What’s Really Going On Here?

The idea of a “Digital Charter” was shoved onto the Canadian public, under the pretense that it would be used to stop violent and unstable people from committing serious crimes. Instead, it seems like an open invitation to throw out privacy protections altogether.

It’s quite stunning the reasons and ways that personal information can be shared “without knowledge or consent” of the people involved. Far from ensuring privacy protections, it codifies the right to share others’ data. The reasons for doing so are also (intentionally?) defined in very vague ways. This ensures that loopholes will always exist.