Social Media Archives - Page 4 of 10

September 6, 2021October 28, 2022

TSCE #9(F)(2): 2021 Parliamentary Hearings On Pornhub, CSAM, Digital Fingerprinting, Databases

When the issues of internet privacy and child protection intersect, sorting things out can be fairly tricky. It was only a decade ago when “Conservative” Public Safety Minister, Vic Toews, decided that having basic protections of browsing history amounted to coddling pedophiles. Nonetheless, these concerns don’t go away just because someone else is now in office.

Now, it’s the group Pornhub that is under the public spotlight. It is just one such site owned by MindGeek. The porno empire of MindGeek includes (but isn’t limited to):

Pornhub
RedTube
YouPorn
Brazzers
Digital Playground
Men.com
Reality Kings
Sean Cody
WhyNotBi.com

Allegations have come up that actual sexual abuse as been published on this site, as well as revenge porn, and videos featuring minors. All of that is illegal. As for the hearings:

The above videos are clipped from the this hearing. The transcript of that day’s hearing is available here.

From January to June 2021, there were Parliamentary hearings held in Ottawa based on what was happened with Pornhub. It turned out that a very large amount of their content involved non-consenting parties, or minors, or both. After an outrage in December 2020, and threatened with the loss of payment processors like Visa and Mastercard, there was some serious damage control.

To be clear, the whole pornography uploading industry is disgusting. This is especially true as it’s fairly easy to allow content of minors to be included, and non-consensual content as well. That being said, the hearings were interesting, but for additional reasons.

One notable topic was the level of software available to scan images and videos, to implement “digital fingerprinting”, and to collaborate with other social media sites. Furthermore, Mindgeek explained they knew exactly who is uploading to their site, and where it’s happening from.

(February 5, 2021, 13:05)
.
We are also working to ensure that once content is removed, it can never make its way back to our platform or to any platform. The revictimization of individuals when their content is re-uploaded causes profound injury that we are working fiercely to prevent. We are attacking this problem in two ways. First, our people are trained to remove such material upon request. Second, we digitally fingerprint any content removed from our website so that it cannot be re-uploaded to our own platform.
.
For the last two years, we have been building a tool called “SafeGuard” to help fight the distribution of non-consensual intimate images. As I sit before you today, I am pleased to report that this month we will be implementing SafeGuard for all videos uploaded to Pornhub. We will offer SafeGuard for free to our non-adult peers, including Facebook, YouTube and Reddit. We are optimistic that all major social media platforms will implement SafeGuard and contribute to its fingerprint database. Such co-operation will be a major step to limit the spread of non-consensual material on the Internet.

(February 5, 2021, 13:10)
Mrs. Shannon Stubbs:
How do you know?
.
Mr. Feras Antoon:
It’s because every single piece of content is viewed by our human moderators. Number two, it goes through software that we have licensed from YouTube, like CSAI Match, and from Microsoft, like PhotoDNA for pictures. It goes through a software called Vobile.
.
Mrs. Shannon Stubbs:
But then why, for example, do Pornhub’s terms of service say, “we sometimes review Content submitted or contributed by users”?
.
Mr. David Tassillo (Chief Operating Officer, Entreprise MindGeek Canada):
Mrs. Stubbs, I would like to add to what Feras mentioned.
I’m not too sure where it says that in the terms of service, but I can guarantee you that every piece of content, before it’s actually made available on the website, goes through several different filters, some of which my colleague made reference to.
.
Depending on whether it comes up as a photo or as a video, we go through different pieces of software that would compare it to known active cases of CSAM, so we’ll actually do a hash check. We actually don’t send the content itself over; they create a digital key per se that’s compared to a known active database. After that, it’s compared to the other piece of software that Feras mentioned, Vobile, which is a fingerprinting software by which anyone can have their content fingerprinted. Any time MindGeek would find the piece of infringing content, we’d add it to that database to prevent the re-upload.
.
Once it passes the software queue…. If anything fails at the software level, it automatically doesn’t make it up to the site. Once that piece has gone through, we move over to the human moderation section. The human moderators will watch each one of the videos, and if they deem that the video passes, it will be—

Essentially, all of the material, whether uploaded or not, will become part of a huge database. Who will have access to it, and for what reasons could content be released?

And software is used, including stuff provided by YouTube and Microsoft. Will they have access to it? Can the material be stored somewhere else?

The Adult Industry Laborers and Artists Association wrote to Parliament, essentially arguing that the porn industry was better at regulating itself than the Government. Also, it was a large sector of the economy which people relied on to provide for their families.

The Sex Workers of Winnipeg Action Coalition actually wrote to Parliament advising AGAINST mandatory identification for using and uploading onto such sites. They argue that it’s too easy to compile and save the data to be used to nefarious purposes (and cite Clearview AI). In terms of material uploaded without consent, they actually have a point.

The Free Speech Coalition wrote to the hearing and recommended working with sites like Pornhub. They claim that illicit material will just be shared elsewhere if this were shut down.

In MindGeek’s written submissions, they spelled out — at least broadly — the technical tools they had to combat illicit material and keep it from being shared:

Our human moderators are supported by a growing suite of technical tools, which fall into two broad categories: those that detect previously identified CSAM and non-consensual content using a fingerprint technology and those that use artificial intelligence to detect unreported CSAM content.

MindGeek’s fingerprinting tools rely on a unique digital fingerprint to match a video or photograph to those already identified in a database of banned content. These tools include YouTube’s CASI Match, Microsoft’s Photo DNA, Vobile’s MediaWise, and MindGeek’s own SafeGuard. All items caught by these tools as CSAM or non-consensual are immediately blocked from the website and handled by our second level review team.

That’s quite the list of electronic tools. And keep in mind, Pornhub knows exactly who the people are uploading to their site. How exactly would this artificial intelligence work, and what would it be programmed to look for?

The Parliamentary Report has also been issued on this subject. Now, this smut shouldn’t be around at all. However, if it can’t be removed, these are some decent recommendations to help the problem somewhat.

Recommendation 1 concerning liability
That the Government of Canada explore means to hold online platforms liable for any failure to prevent the upload of, or ensure the timely deletion of child sexual abuse material, content depicting non-consensual activity, and any other content uploaded without the knowledge or consent of all parties, including enacting a duty of care, along with financial penalties for non-compliance or failure to fulfil a required duty of care.

Recommendation 2 concerning the duty to verify age and consent
That the Government of Canada mandate that content-hosting platforms operating in Canada require affirmation from all persons depicted in pornographic content, before it can be uploaded, that they are 18 years old or older and that they consent to its distribution, and that it consult with the Privacy Commissioner of Canada with respect to the implementation of such obligation.

Recommendation 3 concerning consultation
That the Government of Canada consult with survivors, child advocacy centres, victim support agencies, law enforcement, web platforms and sex workers prior to enacting any legislation or regulations relating to the protection of privacy and reputation on online platforms.

Recommendation 4 concerning section 3 of the Mandatory Reporting Act
That the Government of Canada, in collaboration with the provinces, amend section 3 of An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service to make the National Child Exploitation Coordination Centre the designated law enforcement agency for the purpose of reporting under that section and that it ensure that the National Child Exploitation Coordination Centre has the resources it needs to investigate the increased referrals of child sexual abuse materials

Recommendation 5 concerning reporting obligations
That the Government of Canada invest resources to ensure the compliance of access providers, content providers and Internet content hosting services with their reporting obligations under An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service through education and awareness initiatives.

Recommendation 6 concerning section 11 of the Mandatory Reporting Act
That the Government of Canada consider amending section 11 of An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service to extend the period of time to commence prosecution for an offence under this Act.

Recommendation 7 regarding compliance under the Mandatory Reporting Act
That the Government of Canada call upon the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and other police services to ensure the compliance of Internet service providers, as defined in An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service, with their reporting obligations under that Act, and that compliance be absolute with no means for providers to opt out

Recommendation 8 concerning requirements for uploaders of content
That the Government of Canada set requirements for uploaders of content to provide proof of valid consent of all persons depicted and that the new regulations include penalties severe enough to act as an effective deterrent.

Recommendation 9 regarding pornographic content and age verification
That the Government of Canada develop clear regulations that require Internet service providers, as defined in An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service, to utilize a robust process for age verification of all individuals in uploaded pornographic content, including content generated by individuals, studios or contract partners.

Recommendation 10 concerning proactive enforcement of Canadian laws
That the Government of Canada proactively enforce all Canadian laws regarding child sexual abuse material and the posting of non-consensual material and that in particular, it enforce section 3 of An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service by requiring all Internet service providers, as defined in the Act, to report child sexual abuse material directly to an officer, constable or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace.

Recommendation 11 concerning accessible mechanisms for the removal of online content
That the Government of Canada develop accessible mechanisms that ensure that Canadians victimized by the posting of an image or video online without their consent on sites like Pornhub have the right to have that content removed immediately and to be given the benefit of the doubt with respect to the non-consensual nature of the content, and that the Government of Canada provide all the necessary resources required to put in place these accessible mechanisms.

Recommendation 12 concerning a potential new pattern of sexual violence
That the Government of Canada work with key stakeholder groups such as Canadian sexual assault centres, women’s rights organizations and representatives from LGBTQ2 communities to determine if the posting of non-consensual material depicting sexual violence on sites like Pornhub is reflective of, and contributing to, a new pattern of sexual violence, and that it report its findings, including recommendations for further action, to Parliament.

Recommendation 13 concerning the accountability of websites regarding the downloading and re-uploading of pornographic content
That the Government of Canada hold accountable websites that allow the downloading and re-uploading of pornographic content that erases the identity of the source material, thereby preventing authorities from assessing those accountable for the material.

Recommendation 14 concerning a new legal framework to impose certain obligations on Internet service providers hosting pornographic content
That the Government of Canada create a legal framework that would compel Internet service providers that host pornographic content to:
• implement and use available tools to combat the flagrant and relentless re-uploading of illegal content;
• hire, train and effectively supervise staff to carry out moderation and content removal tasks at an appropriate scale;
• maintain detailed records of user reports and responses that can be audited by authorities;
• be legally accountable for content moderation and removal decisions and the harm to individuals that results when efforts are inadequate; and
• build in and design features that prioritize the best interests and privacy rights of children and vulnerable adults

Admittedly, these are some good proposals. Will anything come of these hearings when the next Parliament sits? I guess we will have to wait and see in the new session.

Again, this is not defend this disgusting industry. However, even with safeguards, there are still plenty of children and non-consenting people who are victimized here. It’s not much of a consolation to say that “it will just go elsewhere” if these sites are shut down.

Even for young adults, what happens in 5 or 10 years when they grow up and realize they’ve made a serious mistake? How easy (or possible) will it be to get this information scrubbed?

August 30, 2021October 2, 2021

Poynter: Self Claimed “Factchecking Group” Funded By Media Giants

Ever get the impression that all major media is controlled by a few people? Well, meet Poynter, the factchecking group that is financed by media conglomerates. There’s no conflict of interest here.

In short, these groups act as a form of counterintelligence groups. Their mission being to discredit and deflect from real truth, in order to promote what Governments and corporations are saying. This is little more than propaganda in today’s society.

By supporting the Poynter Institute, you fortify journalism’s role in a free society. Poynter champions freedom of expression, civil dialogue and compelling journalism that helps citizens participate in healthy democracies. We prepare journalists worldwide to hold powerful people accountable and promote honest information in the marketplace of ideas.

Founded in 1975, Poynter is an inspirational place but also a practical one, connecting the varied crafts of journalism to its higher mission and purpose. From person-to-person coaching and intensive hands-on seminars to interactive online courses and media reporting, Poynter helps journalists sharpen skills and elevate storytelling throughout their careers.

We bring together Poynter faculty and industry experts to explore the intersection of journalism, technology and the public interest. Poynter specializes in:
-Ethics and fact-checking
-Reporting and storytelling
-Developing journalism’s leaders
-Advancing newsroom diversity
-Strengthening local news companies

Poynter claims it prepares journalists to hold powerful people accountable. That’s interesting, considering who their donors are. Also, if truth is important, why the focus on storytelling? This group is noticeably silent on the topic of media and social media censorship. As an example, Kevin Chan of Facebook Canada bragged about removing 16 million pieces of information in 2020.

This group is part of the Coronavirus Facts Alliance, whose mission it is to route out “misinformation”, which is pretty much anything that contradicts the official narrative.

As for their major donors, at least they are open about it:

BIGGEST FUNDERS

Charles Koch Foundation
Democracy Fund
Environmental Defense Fund
Facebook
Foundation to Promote Open Society
Gill Foundation
Google News Initiative
Institute for War and Peace Reporting
John S. and James L. Knight Foundation
Lumina Foundation
MacArthur Foundation
Miami Foundation
National Endowment for Democracy
Newmark Philanthropies
Newton & Rochelle Becker Charitable Trust
Omidyar Network | Luminate
Rita Allen Foundation
Robert R. McCormick Foundation

LARGEST CUSTOM TRAINING PARTNERS IN 2019-2021

American Society of Business Publication Editors
Charles Koch Institute
ESPN
Facebook
Huffington Post
Marketplace
MRC Media
Middle East Broadcasting Networks
National Public Radio
Newsweek
New York Times
Pinellas County School District
Southern Newspapers Publishers Association
The Washington Post
TikTok
USA Today Network
Vice
Voice of America – Broadcasting Board of Governors

Do you get it now? This is just another group of fact checkers doing what they can to ensure that the “correct” opinions and points of view are promoted. These aren’t independents, or even quasi independents.

(1) ttps://www.poynter.org/
(2) https://www.poynter.org/major-funders/
(3) https://www.poynter.org/about/

July 25, 2021July 25, 2021

Press Forward: Anti-White “Independent” Media Controlled And Funded By The Establishment

This is a media group called Press Forward. While it’s nice to see independent media covering events in Canada, even if we may ideologically disagree, this is not the case here. While presenting itself as a group of indy/alt media outlets, this is anything but.

Press Forward has a list of criteria for membership in their group. Most raise no eyebrows, and are in fact very reasonable. However, #8 catches attention for all the wrong reasons.

8. Members must have a publicly posted diversity, equity and inclusion policy in place and be willing to report publicly on the composition of their organization. If you do not have a policy or self-reporting process yet, Press Forward can provide a template and assistance.

While other requirements such as transparency, ethics policies, privacy policies, and trying to generate revenue are sensible, this last one is not. This isn’t a call to make decisions purely on merit, and to ignore traits like race, gender, age, or nationality. On the contrary, it’s a call to make decisions BASED ON those traits.

The site does go on to provide a template for their diversity, equity and inclusion policy. And wow, it’s quite a doozy.

SAMPLE DIVERSITY, EQUITY AND INCLUSION POLICY
We recognize that systemic discrimination based on age, class, cultural and/or linguistic background, ability, economic status, gender, race, religion and sexual orientation have contributed to an environment where the voices of many people in Canada aren’t uplifted. We are committed to reporting on stories that reflect the country’s diversity, as well as hiring and promoting journalists from a variety of underrepresented backgrounds.
.
Diversity: PUBLICATION will integrate equity principles into its decision-making processes. Equity and diversity will inform short-, mid- and long-term editorial planning, source cultivation, editing practices, art direction, etc. Our reporting sheds light on systemic barriers and historic challenges and will reference these issues when contextualizing breaking news.
.
Inclusiveness: As an employer, PUBLICATION will foster a welcoming, barrier-free environment, and build and nurture relationships with writers, editors, photographers and illustrators, as well as other consultants, from a variety of underrepresented groups.
.
Leadership: PUBLICATION’s leadership will strive to ensure it reflects the full diversity of Canada. This includes senior leadership, staff, freelancers, interns and volunteers, as well as featured sources, guests, speakers, etc.
.
Accountability: PUBLICATION will collect on the demographic makeup of the organization and will make a concerted effort to sensitively survey employees, freelancers and audiences on equity and diversity issues. PUBLICATION will then relay this information to the public via regular equity reports.

This is actually the template provided. To be part of Press Forward, it’s necessary to have a policy such as this, which comes across as anti-white. When they talk about factoring diversity into the hiring practices and stories covered, it means non white.

When they say organizations should reflect the full diversity of Canada, it means whites should be replaced. It also means that men, especially white men, are a thing of the past.

Truly independent media outlets don’t need to report on their racial or gender makeup. They don’t need to report the sexual habits of their members. Yet, Press Forward does. Strange, in a country that has all kinds of laws to enshrine equal rights, apparently minorities are oppressed.

This isn’t the hallmark of a collective of indy authors. This comes across as someone, like a Government, trying to implement social policy in how media outlets are composed, and what is written.

Now, about the groups themselves: what are the media outlets that are part of this organization? Where are they located?

Canada’s National Observer (Observer Media Group)
La Converse
The Coast Halifax Weekly
Committee Trawler (Halifax)
The Discourse
The Independent (Newfoundland & Labrador)
The Local (Toronto)
The Narwhal
New Canadian Media
Oakville News
The Sprawl (Calgary)
Sun Peaks Independent News
The Tyee
Village Media
West End Phoenix

And who is running Press Forward?

Emma Gilchrist, Chair, Editor-in-Chief, The Narwhal
Stacy Lee Kong, Vice-Chair, Deputy Editor, West End Phoenix
Jeremy Klaszus, Editor in Chief, The Sprawl
Brent Jolly, National News Media Council
Lela Savić, La Converse, Discourse Media
Karyn Pugliese, Assistant Professor, Ryerson University
Rachel Pulfer, Executive Director, Journalists For Human Rights

Narwhal is Registered Journalism Organization with the Canada Revenue Agency. At the time of writing this, there are only 3, although over a hundred have applied. This means that Narwhal is entitled to special tax breaks most companies wouldn’t be able to get.

A quick search shows a number of recent grants by the Federal Government. Remember, Governments typically don’t hand out money to groups which are a potential threat. Would they give money to media outlets that will hold their feet to the fire?

MEDIA OUTLET	DATE	AMOUNT
Discourse Media	Jul. 17, 2018	$1,520
Discourse Media	Apr. 1, 2020	$161,795
Journalists for Human Rights	Jun. 1, 2019	$250,691
Journalists for Human Rights	Oct. 11, 2019	$11,764,838
Journalists for Human Rights	Jul. 14, 2020	$1,479,856
New Canadian Media	Oct. 1, 2018	$42,555
New Canadian Media	May 1, 2019	$66,517
New Canadian Media	Oct. 1, 2019	$66,800
New Canadian Media	Apr. 1, 2020	$9,471
New Canadian Media	Apr. 1, 2020	$69,300
New Canadian Media	May 1, 2020	$31,900
New Canadian Media	Aug. 1, 2020	$40,000
Observer Media Group	Apr. 1, 2020	$253,594
Observer Media Group	Apr. 1, 2021	$100,000
Sprawl Media Ltd.	Apr. 1, 2020	$30,258
Sun Peaks Independent News Inc.	Jun. 5, 2020	$3,504
Sun Peaks Independent News Inc.	Apr. 1, 2020	$63,452
The Tyee	Apr. 1, 2020	$360,469
Village Media Inc.	Jul. 25, 2016	$88,000
Village Media Inc.	May 1, 2018	$156,000
Village Media Inc.	May 18, 2018	$140,000
Village Media Inc.	Sep. 2, 2019	$190,000
Village Media Inc.	Sep. 2, 2019	$260,000
West End Phoenix	Apr. 1, 2020	$140,134

Canadians object to their money being spent on things they consider wasteful. Fair enough. But here, money is being given to organizations that put diversity above talent and results. Journalists are so restricted that they can get their work subsidized by the public.

This isn’t all of them of course. Still, several have received substantial amounts of money from Ottawa to promote their work. Press Forward is supported (financed in part) by the Trottier Family Foundation Foundation. More on them soon enough.

The Misinformation Project provides Canadian journalists and journalism students with digital investigation and media literacy training in online misinformation. The program is a continuation of JHR’s Combating Misinformation Project, which was funded in part by the Government of Canada in 2020. During this six month program, sixteen professional journalists will hold online training sessions for Canadian news organizations. These sessions cover the information landscape, responsible reporting and digital verification with the goal of helping participants integrate the skills into their daily reporting.
.
The Misinformation Project is funded by the McConnell Foundation, the Trottier Family Foundation and the Rossy Family Foundation.
.
JHR partnered with First Draft News, a global leader in misinformation research and training, to implement the project.

JHR, Journalists for Human Rights, is running the “Misinformation Project“, which was partially funded by the Government of Canada. It gets additional funding from the Trottier Family Foundation, the McConnell Foundation, and the Rossy Family Foundation. Misinformation, of course, are things that contradict the official narrative.

What does this have to do with Press Forward? Rachel Pulfer, Executive Director, Journalists For Human Rights, is on their Board of Directors.

In this earlier piece, it was laid out how various groups trying to “fight misinformation” were actually run by political operatives, and they were getting public money. JHR is led by Peter Donolo, longtime Liberal Party operative. He has been a handler for Jean Chretien, Michael Ignatieff and Justin Trudeau. This corruption crosses all parties.

JHR also runs another group called “Disinfowatch“, in conjunction with the Koch-funded MacDonald-Laurier Institute for Public Policy.

Of course, this isn’t all the money that gets spent on this. Here are some more grants courtesy of the taxpayers. And you think it was going towards roads and schools.

In March 2020, Ryerson University announced that it would be conducting research into “misinformation”, how it spreads, and how to contain it. This would be funded by the Canadian Government. Strangely, this would be run out of the business school, and not the journalism school.

Karyn S. Pugliese, the Director at Press Forward, has been a reporter on CBC and CTV, and is a former reporter at Parliament Hill. An interesting addition to this group.

The Narwhal, which gets special tax breaks because of its status with the Canada Revenue Agency, is also a member of the organization Covering Climate Now. There are many partners in the group, including mainstream names.

CCNow collaborates with journalists and newsrooms to produce more informed and urgent climate stories, to make climate a part of every beat in the newsroom — from politics and weather to business and culture — and to drive a public conversation that creates an engaged public. Mindful of the media’s responsibility to inform the public and hold power to account, we advise newsrooms, share best practices, and provide reporting resources that help journalists ground their coverage in science while producing stories that resonate with audiences.

By their own admission, CCNow wants to insert the climate change issue into everything, and use that to shift the culture. This isn’t media, it’s indoctrination. Just a thought, but this partnership may be why the CRA is so willing to grant the RJO status to Narwhal. One of their Directors is Alex Himelfarb, a former Privy Council Clerk.

Another Director is a member of the National News Media Council. They describe themselves as a “self-regulatory ethics body for the news media industry in Canada”. Now there’s nothing wrong with having different views, but this seems pretty inconsistent for Press Forward, which claims to be pushing independent journalism.

The Sprawl, based in Alberta, seems to be about the closest thing to independent. It is willing to take submissions from a broad group of people. However, it bleats the “diversity” drum to such a degree that everything else seems secondary. A quick look through recent articles show an incredibly leftwing streak.

This is hardly a complete rundown, however, it’s difficult to consider this group “independent” in any way, considering some of the people running it.

Instead of calling for stories based on talent, hard work, or creativity, all of this takes a backseat to “diversity and inclusion”. It seems done to deliberately drive up sentiments about being persecuted or taken advantage of. And we all know what the goal is.

It also has to be said, none of these outlets ask critical questions about the “pandemic” that has been going on for the last 18 months or so. Instead, the official narratives get promoted in their work. Perhaps that’s another reason for the subsidies.

(1) https://pressforward.ca/
(2) https://pressforward.ca/about-us/
(3) https://archive.is/YpLNi
(4) https://archive.is/YQYFh
(5) https://pressforward.ca/sample-diversity-equity-and-inclusion-policy/
(6) https://pressforward.ca/team/
(7) https://pressforward.ca/membership/
(8) https://pressforward.ca/membership-criteria-2/
(9) https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/charities-giving/other-organizations-that-issue-donation-receipts-qualified-donees/other-qualified-donees-listings/list-registered-journalism-organizations.html
(10) https://search.open.canada.ca/en/gc/
(11) https://jhr.ca/jhrs-misinformation-project
(12) https://archive.is/9Ed4r
(13) https://canucklaw.ca/media-subsidies-to-counter-online-misinformation-groups-led-by-political-operatives/
(14) https://canucklaw.ca/taxpayer-grants-to-fight-misinformation-in-media-including-more-pandemic-bucks/
(15) https://www.ryerson.ca/news-events/news/2020/03/ryersons-social-media-lab-tackles-misinformation-amid-pandemic/
(16) https://thenarwhal.ca/about-us/
() https://coveringclimatenow.org/about/
(17) https://coveringclimatenow.org/partners/partner-list/
(18) https://thenarwhal.ca/alex-himelfarb
(19) https://www.mediacouncil.ca/
(20) https://www.sprawlalberta.com/policies

July 18, 2021October 6, 2021

Postmedia Gets Next Round Of “Pandemic Bucks” From Taxpayers In 2021

The Postmedia empire got its most recent batch of handouts on April 1, 2021. Any wonder that this organization is so consistently supportive of the Governments (Federal, Provincial, Municipal).

People like Lorrie Goldstein “claim” that they oppose having the public bail out the media industry, yet, these feelings aren’t strong enough to make him quit.

Just a thought on why he supports the vaxx agenda.

NAME	AMOUNT
Clinton News Record	$15,629
The Cochrane Times-Post	$21,449
Drayton Valley Western Review	$30,227
Exeter Lakeshore Times-Advance	$42,191
The Fairview Post	$19,984
Goderich Signal Star	$53,353
Hanna Herald	$11,724
Huron Expositor (Seaforth)	$14,793
The Lucknow Sentinel	$14,828
The Mayerthorpe Freelancer	$12,288
The Mid-North Monitor	$12,037
The Mitchell Advocate	$33,859
The Nanton News	$10,503
Ontario Farmer	$817,081
The Pincher Creek Echo	$12,273
Record-Gazette	$16,080
Shoreline Beacon	$30,263
The Standard (Elliot Lake)	$39,545
The Vulcan Advocate	$17,417
The Whitecourt Star	$17,624
The Wiarton Echo	$21,881

Wild idea, but maybe this is why Postmedia is still on board with Trudeau and Ford. The pandemic bucks are still coming in, and Postmedia continues to cash in. Can you really trust “journalists” who are being subsidized by the Government? Always be following the money.

(1) https://twitter.com/sunlorrie/
(2) https://twitter.com/sunlorrie/status/1416736920374284288
(3) https://search.open.canada.ca/en/gc
(4) https://search.open.canada.ca/en/gc/?sort=agreement_start_date_s%20desc&page=1&search_text=postmedia
(5) https://archive.is/OF0pW

June 30, 2021December 10, 2022

Counter Intelligence Firms To Influence Elections (Canada And Abroad), Registered As Charities

This is a follow-up to an earlier article. Various groups, which claim to be fighting “misinformation” are actually run by political operatives in Canada. Some of the grants that Canadian taxpayers shell out are also listed. The previous piece will provide a lot of background.

Now the question remains: what do their finances look like? Since many of these groups are in fact registered charities, this information is freely available.

The description as “counter intelligence” is fitting here. While claiming to promote the idea of fairness and openness in the electoral process, these companies won’t ever give the full picture. They’ll never address topics like central banking, the climate change hoax, the “pandemic” psy-op, or many hard questions. In fact, some of these groups run “disinformation” campaigns to prevent the truth about CV from getting out.

The Cambridge Dictionary defines counter intelligence as: “secret action taken by a country to prevent another country from discovering its military, industrial, or political secrets”. However, instead of a struggle between 2 countries, it’s one between government and its people.

Lenin’s famous quote applies here: the best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.

Ongoing programs:
ADVANCING EDUCATION BY INCREASING CANADIAN YOUTH AWARENESS AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE VOTE IN CANADIAN ELECTIONS AND PARTICIPATE IN THE CANADIAN DEMOCRATIC PROCESS THROUGH THE USE OF MULTIMEDIA, ART, FILM, TV, INTERNET PROJECT, WRITTEN MATERIALS, SEMINARS, LECTURES.

[2019 tax information]
Receipted donations $5,000.00 (0.36%)
Non-receipted donations $14,580.00 (1.06%)
Gifts from other registered charities $220,520.00 (15.96%)
Government funding $1,064,684.00 (77.06%)
All other revenue $76,923.00 (5.57%)
Total revenue: $1,381,707.00

Charitable programs $1,174,140.00 (86.07%)
Management and administration $190,027.00 (13.93%)
Fundraising $0.00 (0.00%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $1,364,167.00

[2020 tax information]
Receipted donations $30,200.00 (1.35%)
Non-receipted donations $17,083.00 (0.76%)
Gifts from other registered charities $265,000.00 (11.86%)
Government funding $1,724,916.00 (77.21%)
All other revenue $196,872.00 (8.81%)
Total revenue: $2,234,071.00

Charitable programs $1,855,731.00 (88.87%)
Management and administration $232,460.00 (11.13%)
Fundraising $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $2,088,191.00

The Apathy Is Boring Project claims to try to increase public participation in elections by producing educational content on how the process works.

Ongoing programs:
CIVIX IS A CIVIC EDUCATION CHARITY DEDICATED TO BUILDING THE HABITS OF ACTIVE AND INFORMED CITIZENSHIP AMOUNG YOUTH. STUDENT VOTE IS THE FLAGSHIP PROGRAM OF CIVIX. COINCIDING WITH OFFICIAL ELECTION PERIODS, STUDENTS LEARN ABOUT GOVERNMENT AND THE ELECTORAL PROCESS, DISCUSS RELEVANT ISSUES AND CAST BALLOTS FOR THE OFFICIAL ELECTION CANDIDATES. CIVIX ALSO OFFERS OTHER INITIATIVES BETWEEN ELECTIONS, INCLUDING GOVERNMENT BUDGET CONSULTATIONS FOR YOUTH (STUDENT BUDGET CONSTULATION), COODINATED VISITS BETWEEN STUDENTS AND THEIR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES (REP DAY), AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR TEACHERS (DEMOCRACY BOOTCAMP) AND DIGITAL MEDIAL LITERACY THAT AIMS TO HELP STUDENTS DEVELOP THE SKILLS AND HABITS TO BE CRITICAL CONSUMERS OF INFORMATION.
.
New programs:
CIVIX EXPANDED ITS PROGRAMMING TO COLOMBIA.

[2018 tax information]
Receipted donations $51,570.00 (2.31%)
Non-receipted donations $83,463.00 (3.74%)
Gifts from other registered charities $550,846.00 (24.70%)
Government funding $1,536,915.00 (68.91%)
All other revenue $7,393.00 (0.33%)
Total revenue: $2,230,187.00

Charitable programs $2,429,729.00 (92.06%)
Management and administration $140,741.00 (5.33%)
Fundraising $68,780.00 (2.61%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $2,639,250.00

[2019 tax information]
Receipted donations $25,000.00 (0.49%)
Non-receipted donations $85,822.00 (1.67%)
Gifts from other registered charities $831,491.00 (16.16%)
Government funding $3,483,769.00 (67.70%)
All other revenue $719,631.00 (13.99%)
Total revenue: $5,145,713.00

Charitable programs $4,691,097.00 (94.81%)
Management and administration $162,708.00 (3.29%)
Fundraising $93,850.00 (1.90%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $4,947,655.00

CIVIX is a registered charity in Canada that claims to promote democracy in locally. Apparently, it’s also involved with elections in Colombia as well. Glad to know that public money is used to meddle with another country’s leadership.

Ongoing programs:
ICC HOSTS CITIZENSHIP CEREMONIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY. THE COMMUNITY CITIZENSHIP CEREMONIES ARE A CELEBRATION OF CANADA’S NEWEST CITIZENS AND OFFER UNIQUE OPPORTUNITIES TO REFLECT ON WHAT IT MEANS TO BE ACTIVE AND ENGAGED CITIZENS. CANOO IS A MOBILE APP THAT PROVIDES FREE ADMISSION FOR NEW CANADIAN CITIZENS TO MUSEUMS, SCIENCE CENTRES, ART GALLERIES, PARKS AND HISTORIC SITES ACROSS CANADA. THE APP OFFERS FREE ADMISSION FOR EVERY NEW CITIZEN AND UP TO 4 CHILDREN DURING THE FIRST YEAR OF THEIR CITIZENSHIP. THE CANOO APP IS AVAILABLE FOR FREE ON THE APPLE STORE AND GOOGLE PLAY. 6 DEGREES IS A GLOBAL FORUM THAT BRINGS PEOPLE TOGETHER TO EXCHANGE IDEAS AND CREATE CONVERSATION IN ORDER TO MOTIVATE POSITIVE CHANGE IN ATTITUDES, BEHAVIOR AND POLICY. IT IS ABOUT INCLUSION, CONNECTION, ARTISTIC REPRESENTATION, ENGAGEMENT AND THE POWER THAT COMES FROM BRINGING PEOPLE TOGETHER TO OPEN HEARTS AND CHANGE MINDS.
.
New programs:
Operations Outside Canada
2 countries
.
GERMANY
MEXICO

[2019 tax information]
Receipted donations $238,781.00 (4.57%)
Non-receipted donations $1,268,590.00 (24.30%)
Gifts from other registered charities $0.00 (0.00%)
Government funding $3,553,256.00 (68.06%)
All other revenue $160,196.00 (3.07%)
Total revenue: $5,220,823.00

Charitable programs $4,595,568.00 (89.02%)
Management and administration $386,970.00 (7.50%)
Fundraising $180,044.00 (3.49%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $5,162,582.00

[2020 tax information]
Receipted donations $208,421.00 (7.00%)
Non-receipted donations $809,716.00 (27.20%)
Gifts from other registered charities $6,962.00 (0.23%)
Government funding $1,840,232.00 (61.81%)
All other revenue $112,074.00 (3.76%)
Total revenue: $2,977,405.00

Charitable programs $3,478,136.00 (86.56%)
Management and administration $371,785.00 (9.25%)
Fundraising $168,425.00 (4.19%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $4,018,346.00

Institute for Canadian Citizenship was started up by Adrian Clarkson, former Governor General of Canada. While claiming to promote citizenship for new Canadians, the NGO is active in gaslighting with claims of racism, and promoting the disinformation narrative. In short, it functions like a media arm of the Federal Government, while pretending to be neutral.

Programs and activities:
.
Ongoing programs:
Educate African journalists about human rights; Educate African public about human rights via media; Award journalists for excellent human rights reporting; Educate Canadian students about human rights; Educate Canadian Aboriginal journalists about human rights; Educate Canadian public about human rights through media; Educate Jordanian journalists about human rights; Educate Syrian journalists about human rights.

New programs:
Operations Outside Canada
11 countries

CONGO, DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC
KENYA
JORDAN
SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC
TUNISIA
MALI
IRAQ
YEMEN
MAURITANIA
UGANDA
SOUTH SUDAN

[2019 tax information]
Receipted donations $155,295.00 (5.29%)
Non-receipted donations $247,342.00 (8.42%)
Gifts from other registered charities $0.00 (0.00%)
Government funding $1,736,550.00 (59.10%)
All other revenue $799,066.00 (27.20%)
Total revenue: $2,938,253.00

Charitable programs $2,441,992.00 (85.63%)
Management and administration $245,459.00 (8.61%)
Fundraising $164,388.00 (5.76%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $2,851,845.00

[2020 tax information]
Receipted donations $211,784.00 (7.60%)
Non-receipted donations $17,110.00 (0.61%)
Gifts from other registered charities $0.00 (0.00%)
Government funding $1,866,127.00 (66.98%)
All other revenue $691,054.00 (24.80%)
Total revenue: $2,786,075.00

Charitable programs $2,621,360.00 (93.10%)
Management and administration $147,657.00 (5.24%)
Fundraising $46,742.00 (1.66%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $2,815,759.00

Journalists for Human Rights is another such group. While it may seem harmless enough to promote human rights abroad, it’s worth noting that these groups remain silent on what happens in Canada. They say nothing about the martial law and medical tyranny imposed on the people who help fund them.

JHR also helps fund “Disinfo Watch”, a supposedly independent website devoted to debunking conspiracy theories about the “pandemic”.

Simon Fraser University (BC) and Ryerson University (Ontario) are listed as being organizations to counter misinformation. Both are registered charities, according to the Canada Revenue Agency.

These are just some of the media influencers working in Canada to misinform and deceive the public. And they are partially funded with tax dollars.

(1) https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/news/2019/07/backgrounder–helping-citizens-critically-assess-and-become-resilient-against-harmful-online-disinformation.html
(2) https://www.sciencepresse.qc.ca/
(3) https://www.apathyisboring.com/
(4) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/srch/pub/dsplyQckVw?q.srchNm=apathy+is+boring&q.stts=0007&selectedFilingPeriodIndex=1&selectedCharityBn=859483349RR0001&isSingleResult=false
(5) https://nmc-mic.ca/
(6) https://civix.ca/
(7) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/srch/pub/dsplyRprtngPrd?
(8) https://www.ewc-rdc.ca/pub/en/mission_history
(9) https://www.canadahelps.org/en/charities/institute-for-canadian-citizenshipinstitut-pour-la-citoyennete-canadienne/
(10) https://www.globalvision.ca
(11) https://www.inclusion.ca/
(12) https://www.jhr.ca/
(13) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/srch/pub/dsplyRprtngPrd?q.srchNm=journalists+for+human+rights&q.stts=0007&selectedCharityBn=860372853RR0001&dsrdPg=1
(14) www.mcgill.ca/maxbellschool/
(15) https://mediasmarts.ca/
(16) www.newcanadianmedia.ca
(17) https://newsmediacanada.ca
(18) https://www.ryerson.ca/arts/research-and-innovation/democratic-engagement-exchange/
(19) http://www.samaracanada.com
(20) swna.com
(21) www.sfu.ca/dialogue.html
(22) www.vubblepop.com
(23) https://canucklaw.ca/media-subsidies-to-counter-online-misinformation-groups-led-by-political-operatives/
(24) https://canucklaw.ca/taxpayer-grants-to-fight-misinformation-in-media-including-more-pandemic-bucks/
(25) https://canucklaw.ca/more-pandemic-bucks-for-disinformation-prevention-locally-and-abroad-civix/
(26) https://canucklaw.ca/phac-supporting-science-up-first-online-counter-misinformation-group/
(27) https://canucklaw.ca/disinfowatch-ties-to-atlas-network-connected-to-lpc-political-operatives/

June 27, 2021March 17, 2022

More Pandemic Bucks For “Disinformation Prevention” Locally And Abroad; CIVIX

In addition to funding efforts to combat “misinformation” locally, Canadian taxpayers are apparently on the hook for efforts in the U.S., Colombia and Mali as well. Wonderful use of deficit spending.

RECENT GRANTS TO COMBAT “MISINFORMATION”:

NAME	DATE	AMOUNT
CIVIX	Feb. 23, 2021	$2,500,000
Dubois, Elizabeth	Mar. 22, 2021	$19,145
Elnakouri, Abdelrahman	Jan. 1, 2021	$10,000
Farokhi, Zeinab	Jan. 1, 2021	$10,000
Gagnon, Marc-Andre	Mar. 15, 2021	$20,000
Gauthier, Evelyne	Jan. 1, 2021	$10,000
Hassanein, Khaled S.	Mar. 15, 2021	$20,000
Hastings, Colin	Jan. 1, 2021	$10,000
Henderson, Monica J.	Jan. 1, 2021	$10,000
IFEX	Dec. 14, 2020	$799,704
Jagayat, Arvin S.	Jan. 1, 2021	$10,000
Levitin, Daniel J.	Jan. 1, 2021	$395,909
Merkley, Eric	Jan. 1, 2021	$10,000
Naffi, Nadia	Jan. 1, 2021	$99,081
Petrina, Stephen	Mar. 15, 2021	$20,000
Reed, Kathleen J.	Jan. 1, 2021	$10,000
Russell, Gillian M.	Jan. 1, 2021	$10,000
Search for Common Ground	Dec. 16, 2020	$2,573,553
Smythe, Suzanne K.M.	Jan. 1, 2021	$210,711
Stewart, Michelle	Jan. 1, 2021	$339,783
Tilleczek, Kate C.	Mar. 15, 2021	$20,000
United Nations Development Programme	Mar. 30, 2021	$5,000,197
WITNESS	Dec. 18, 2020	$1,000,197

Good to know that Canadians are forced to finance counter intelligence operations in other countries.

Locally, one of the biggest recipients of “misinformation prevention” grants is CIVIX. Now, who exactly is that?

CIVIX is a charity registered with the Canada Revenue Agency. This means that about half of the donations are a subsidy from taxpayers.

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

Peter Donolo is a longtime political operative with the Liberal Party of Canada. Rachel Curran spent years with the Conservative Party of Canada. Interesting.

CIVIX is a non-partisan, national registered charity dedicated to building the skills and habits of active and engaged citizenship among young Canadians. Our vision is a strong and inclusive democracy where all young people are ready, willing and able to participate.
.
CIVIX was born through a merger between Operation Dialogue and Student Vote – two non-partisan organizations with a significant history of engaging Canadian youth.
.
Student Vote was founded by Taylor Gunn and Lindsay Mazzucco in 2002 to develop the capacity for informed and engaged citizenship among young Canadians. Student Vote parallel elections were organized for students under the voting age coinciding with official elections.
.
Operation Dialogue was established by the late Warren Goldring of AGF Management in 1999 to promote good citizenship through information and dialogue with the goal of enhancing each individual Canadian’s appreciation of our country. Its flagship program was the annual ‘Talk About Canada Quiz,’ which encouraged young Canadians to be more informed about their country.
.
Operation Dialogue and Student Vote aligned their strengths and assets and worked together to achieve a larger vision. Following a collaborative approach during 2011-2012, the organizations formally merged operations in 2013 and created CIVIX.
.
Since 2013, CIVIX has continued to run the Student Vote program and has developed exciting new programs to reach students between elections.

While previously covered here, CIVIX is run by political hacks, who have bipartisan connections in Ottawa. This “counter-misinformation” group is anything but organic.

It’s also interesting the ETFO, the Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario, and OSSTF, the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation, are supporters. Do their members know about this?

One project that CIVIX runs is CTRL-F, and it’s funded by the Canadian Government. This is supposed to help people become more aware in checking out source material.

Admittedly, CTRL-F/CIVIX do produce some quality videos on the topic of verifying sources. However, they remain silent on the topic of media censorship by government and tech companies. Easy to be pro-journalism when one has their thumb on the scale.

DATE	AMOUNT
Jun. 13, 2014	$100,000
Jul. 24, 2014	$100,000
Apr. 30, 2015	$75,000
Feb. 17, 2016	$75,000
Mar. 24, 2016	$25,000
Feb. 24, 2017	$75,000
Feb. 24, 2017	$225,000
Apr. 1, 2017	$25,000
Mar. 23, 2018	$165,000
Apr. 1, 2018	$400,000
Apr. 1, 2018	$175,000
Nov. 15, 2018	$23,000
Dec. 10, 2018	$100,000
Apr. 1, 2019	$540,000
Jan. 1, 2020	$494,320
Apr. 1, 2020	$132,500
Apr. 1, 2020	$192,300
Feb. 23, 2021	$2,500,000

In case you think this group is harmless, just remember, tax money is used to finance this group. We pay to push political agendas here and abroad, and were never asked about this.

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: