Just days before the federal Liberal government unveiled its long-promised plan to promote online safety, first-time Canadian Dimension contributor Ricardo Grinspun — who, according to his online bio, “is a retired professor of economics and senior scholar at York University and a member of Seniors for Climate Action Now” — urged “progressive movements, and specifically climate activists (to) incorporate into our policy agendas the regulation of social media,” and particularly the threat posed by AI.

“f we don’t assert democratic control over these platforms, they—and the far-right movements of this world who thrive on them—will continue to expand their influence over us,” he warns.

“We all know we have a misinformation problem. Take the 2023 wildfires in Canada. Depending on which online echo chamber you entered, they were supposedly caused by arson, ‘green terrorists,’ pyrotechnic drones, directed-energy weapons, or even government helicopters. Conspiracy theories go further, claiming governments lie about climate change to prepare ‘climate lockdowns.’”

That “disinformation is not a glitch of social media,” he points out. “It’s the business model. Rage, fear, and sensationalism drive clicks. Clicks equal profit. The platforms don’t just host content; they promote what keeps people angry and addicted,” he contends.

While acknowledging that he understands “why so many on the left hesitate to take on this issue—because we value freedom of speech, and any push for regulation feels like a slippery slope toward censorship, this is a misunderstanding,” he contends.

“Freedom of speech is not the same as freedom to be amplified. People should be able to say what they want within the law. But no company has a duty to turn conspiracy theories into viral megaphones. That amplification is a choice baked into algorithms designed for profit.”

In fact, “If there’s one idea to remember, it’s this: the issue isn’t just bad content,” he argues. “The main issue is the industry’s business model that ties profit to disinformation and division.”

Elsewhere on the site, Centre for International and Defense Policy research fellow Elliot Goodell Ugalde makes the case that, although United States President Donald Trump’s latest tariff threat — namely, a 10 per cent surtax on exports from Canada and other countries that have “failed to effectively enforce its prohibition on imports made with forced labour” — “deserves scepticism,” the response from Canada “has revealed a deeper problem,” in his view.

“Our political debate still treats forced labour as something that happens elsewhere…as an external problem: produced elsewhere, hidden in imported goods, and solved at the border, rather than as a risk embedded in Canadian labour and immigration policy.”

In fact, “Canada’s forced labour problem is homegrown,” he argues. “Canada has built domestic labour pathways in which migrant workers can become dependent on a single employer for wages, housing, immigration status, and survival.”

His recommendation: “Canada can reject Trump’s tariff threat as opportunistic without pretending forced labour is only a foreign supply-chain problem. If Ottawa wants credibility on forced labour, it must confront the coercive dependencies built into its own labour system before pointing fingers abroad.”

Also weighing in on Trump’s claim that other countries, including Canada, “tolerate forced labour”: Rabble political writer Karl Nerenberg, who, like Ugalde, dismisses the acusation as “quintessential U.S. chutzpah” but also acknowledges that Canada “has not been effective in ensuring there is no forced and child labour in this country’s supply chains.”

Canada may have a law on the books to require corporations to “report annually on their due diligence concerning forced and child labour in their supply chains,” but “advocates and experts all say the legislation is ineffective,” he points out.

“Anyone can look up the reports. There are over 12,000 of them for 2025, from corporations and from other organizations,” but although “almost all make a rhetorical commitment to the principles of various conventions banning modern-day slavery… virtually none of the reports include very much in the way of facts and figures. Many do not even list all the countries that are part of their supply chains.”

As per the current law, it’s also “up to companies and organizations to decide what details they will put in their reports, and with how much precision,” he notes.

“It is in no corporation’s interest to divulge any information that could damage its reputation or have an impact on its bottom line. In this case, the government of Canada is getting what it asks for – which is not much.”

Over at Ricochet, Shenaz Kermalli takes a closer look at Prime Minister Mark Carney’s “newly announced advisory committee on equity,” and explains why it “raised questions about whose pain is met with political urgency in Canada and whose is not,” starting, in her view, with the decision to appoint former senator Marc Gold, “a Jewish community leader and former national chair of the Canada-Israel Committee,” as its chair.

“(Carney) spoke forcefully about antisemitism, declaring that ‘Canada’s civic compact is failing Jewish Canadians,’ while citing disturbing incidents of anti-Jewish violence and intimidation. He is right to be alarmed by antisemitism; any credible response to hate must take it seriously. But if this is truly an advisory council aimed at combatting hate against all communities, why was the launch so singularly focused on one community with only passing acknowledgment of the threats facing others? Muslims, too, are living through a period of extraordinary fear and vulnerability.”

She wrapped up her essay with a very personal note: “After hearing news of Carney’s speech, my 17-year-old son — who campaigned enthusiastically for the Liberals and once urged Carney at a rally to maintain a balanced perspective on Israel and Palestine, leaving hopeful — sent me an uncharacteristically angry message,” she revealed.

“To him, the move was strategic: the government had quietly ended its dedicated role combating Islamophobia, only to now elevate concerns about antisemitism through a high-profile new advisory body. When I asked if he’d posted this criticism online, he said no. Like many young racialized Canadians, he has learned to calculate the cost of speaking publicly. ‘It’s just how I feel,’ he told me.”

Meanwhile, her fellow Ricochet writer, Terra Loire Gillespie, turns their spotlight on the “carnival trick that keeps (Ontario Premier Doug Ford) in power,” despite having “the backing of only a small fraction of Ontario’s voters,” and outlines how it comes down to “a political system increasingly shaped by wealth,” as they see it.

“From the maximum political donation changes to the low voter turnout, from weaponizing the notwithstanding clause to gutting the FOI law for personal benefit — Ford’s Conservatives have weakened our democracy again and again,” they point out.

“In that context, ‘Ontario likes him’ stops being an observation and starts being a distraction. A strategy. One we can name.  And one we can out-organize, right in our own neighbourhoods.”

For their part, some residents of a Kitchener, Ont. encampment that “has distinguished itself by repeatedly thwarting the regional government’s attempts to clear it, and by being at the centre of a recent landmark court decision” have a message for Ford, according to Press Progress correspondent Eric Wickham.

“David Ernst, a 35-year-old man with a backwards Hurley baseball cap, a dark beard and a serious expression, tells PressProgress he had been ‘bouncing from place to place’ before ending up in the encampment a few months ago,” Wickham reports.

“Asked what he’d say to the premier if he had the opportunity, Ernst offered, ‘Maybe it’s time for a change. Maybe somebody needs to step up from the little guys to represent the little guys. Maybe somebody needs to actually give a crap about ‘em, instead of shutting everything down.’”

Rounding out the progressive-left roster, The Maple’s Alex Cosh laments Canada’s decision to stay silent as the United States “has thrown the upcoming FIFA World Cup tournament into further chaos after refusing and revoking visas for visiting fans and officials over the past several days,” he notes.

“Canada, one of the tournament co-hosts, has not issued any official statement regarding the latest interruptions.”

Trending on the right-of-centre side of the Canadian activist mediaverse:

• Juno News contributor Harrison Faulkner gives his initial take on Carney’s “pathetic, woke AI national strategy,” which, he avers, “AI super fans” see as “too much government involvement and interference,” while “AI-skeptics” think it’s “too soft on AI developers,” while his fellow Juno regular Quinn Patrick frames the newly introduced bill as a “sweeping social media age verification law.”
• Over at the Counter Signal, Clayton DeMaine recaps Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre’s call for national unity, as delivered in Calgary earlier this week, “urging Canadians opposed to separatism to listen to Western separatists’ concerns rather than alienate or attack them,” and “addressing many of the grievances driving separatist sentiment in Western Canada.”
• Rebel News host Sheila Gunn Reid flags a newly launched initiative by the Sûreté du Québec “that sees officers contacting the spouses of licensed firearms owners to ask about possible domestic violence concerns,” despite the fact that Canada “already has extensive laws allowing authorities to intervene when there are genuine safety concerns.”
• Rebel Media mission specialist David Menzies launches a new “one-of-a-kind gift” for Rebel News fans: “A personalized selfie-style video message from any Rebel News journalist — perfect for birthdays, graduations, anniversaries, retirements, Father’s Day, Mother’s Day, Christmas, or just because,” with prices starting at $100 for a 30-second clip.