海角社区官网

Kirk and his compatriots formed a plan. They moved to alternative, conservative-friendly social media to start getting their message out. They prioritized real-world organizing. And they began plotting how they could bend the internet to their will.

Not even nine months into Trump鈥檚 return, this plan has worked even better than they could have imagined. Alternative social media is a hotbed of pro-Trump fervour, a right-wing youth movement is ascendent in America, and the big tech firms have volunteered to comply.

Kirk was not the most public face of the Make America Great Again movement, but he was one of its most effective operators. His tragic assassination is, in part, the result of a political system corroded by anger. His death has further fuelled that high-velocity rage machine, with some cheering on his death and others calling for .听

It won鈥檛 end there. Kirk鈥檚 allies in government are promising to accelerate their plans to assume control over online communication. Canada needs to be worried.听

The fact is, Kirk was right: We allowed a small cadre of companies to seize control over our conversations with no oversight or accountability. It began just over a decade ago, when companies like Facebook apparently concluded that the best way to grow was to monopolize and monetize our attention. They would hoover up our data and feed us back content designed to keep us maximally engaged. They became the platform on which we got our news, discussed politics, followed sports, learned about new music, and shared photos of our lunch.

But what these companies , and failed to tell us, was that the systems they built often ran on anger and paranoia. Rage-inducing content performed better than civil discourse and misinformation is shared more readily than fact. Our whole society morphed to meet this new unreality: News headlines became far more likely to evoke , our politicians fell into virtue signalling and conspiracy theories, and our conversations became darker and less productive. Scores of young men were radicalized online 鈥� by the Islamic State, by white nationalists, and sometimes by the simple idea that political violence is justified.

鈥淓ngagement on positive and policy posts has been severely reduced, leaving [political] parties increasingly reliant on inflammatory posts and direct attacks on their competitors,鈥� one internal Facebook report from 2019 reads. 鈥淢any parties, including those that have shifted strongly to the negative, worry about the long-term effects on democracy.鈥�

Facebook and the other companies had built what researcher Wendy Hui Kyong Chun calls 鈥�.鈥澛�

Governments tried to tinker with the consequences of this 鈥� Justin Trudeau asked firms to spit out more Canadian content, Joe Biden asked these companies to crack down on misinformation 鈥� but it only entrenched their central position in our democracy. Worse yet, this collusion between big tech and government formed a backlash online.

Trump exploited online grievances about censorship and deplatforming. He weaponized a steady stream of viral videos to claim that America鈥檚 cities had fallen to lawlessness. He elevated racist chatter about migrants to set the stage for mass deportations.

Kirk鈥檚 movement, Turning Point USA, translated that digital culture war to IRL organizing. He spent years criss-crossing the country, visiting campuses large and small to create real spaces where young people could debate, disagree. Kirk understood that real political power comes from the grassroots, not the internet. It is a sick irony that he was killed at one of these events, shot by a terminally-online young man who believed that, as he texted his partner, 鈥渟ome hate can鈥檛 be negotiated out.鈥�

This isn鈥檛 to say that Kirk鈥檚 politics were good, because they weren鈥檛. He eschewed political violence in some cases, and it at other times. Nor do I believe that killing him was in any way justified, because it wasn鈥檛. Political violence can鈥檛 create more free and fair societies; it can only make them more violent.

But he was right that politics happens in the meat space, not in cyberworld. And he was right that online manipulation of the discourse was an existential threat to society. Given that, we need to be freaked out by how his allies are hoping to use his death to maximize their own power.

On Monday, Vice President J.D. Vance occupied Kirk鈥檚 broadcast chair to memorialize his fallen friend and promise retribution. With his White House colleague Stephen Miller, he warned of a secret 鈥減yramid鈥� of media outlets, activists, and NGOs who had formed a dangerous underground terror network. Miller vowed 鈥渃hannel all of the anger that we have 鈥� to use every resource we have at the Department of Justice, Homeland Security, and throughout this government to identify, disrupt, dismantle, and destroy these networks.鈥�

This has already begun online. Pro-Trump online activists have already compiled databases of those allegedly responsible for provoking or celebrating Kirk鈥檚 death, including journalists and academics in Canada. One Trump-friendly Congressman is an 鈥渋mmediate ban for life of every post or commenter that belittled the assassination of Charlie Kirk.鈥澛�

We shouldn鈥檛 expect resistance from the social media companies. Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta, has publicly bent the knee to the Trump administration. TikTok, already accused of being a tool of cultural manipulation run by China, is set to be sold to a U.S. consortium that includes right-wing tech financier Marc Andreessen.听

The crackdown on the press has begun, too. This week Trump announced a $15 billion lawsuit against the New York Times. (One of the most-subscribed-to newspapers in Canada.) Other papers have complied in advance, liberal voices and MAGA conservatives. Even worse, Trump has boosted the idea of a 鈥�,鈥� which would allow his state to fine news outlets for coverage he doesn’t like.听

This attack on free speech will not stop at America鈥檚 borders. If Canada cannot control its own information ecosystem, that puts us at the mercy of whoever does.听

Information sovereignty starts with our own citizens鈥� data, the lifeblood of these tech behemoths. We need stronger privacy laws, and we need to assert data sovereignty. Too much Canadian personal information runs through the United States, and American firms own of our data centres. We could also use antitrust law to forbid big tech鈥檚 worst anti-competitive abuses.

But we also need to boycott the bad actors.

Most Canadians don鈥檛 use Twitter. Yet it remains the go-to platform for journalists, partisans, sports teams, government departments, transit agencies, and politicians. Elon Musk, its owner, has been totally by all manner of conspiracy theories and has with neo-Nazis. He now says that the media and educational institutions are 鈥嬧�嬧��.鈥� What鈥檚 more, we have that he is manipulating Twitter鈥檚 algorithm to impose his views on his users. So why are Canadians 鈥� from the 海角社区官网Star to Prime Minister Mark Carney 鈥� still using it?

If we keep using big tech, we need to use it smarter. Look to the Democratic nominee for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani, who is using Instagram to pull New Yorkers offline and into the real world. Conservative MP Michelle Rempel-Garner uses Substack to translate her parliamentary work to the masses and Liberal Nathaniel Erskine-Smith uses YouTube to break down policy.听

But even these useful applications will be perverted if Trump imposes his will onto these companies. So here鈥檚 another idea: Build something Canadian.

Some entrepreneurs are already doing that. Made-in-Canada social media platform is currently ready for its beta launch. The app, which will live in the same ecosystem as liberal-leaning platform Bluesky, promises 鈥渉ealthy discourse through thoughtful design, not algorithmic chaos.鈥澛�

Gander is just one solution: It might flop. We need to be trying, and funding, lots of different options meant to give us real alternatives. We can鈥檛 bend the whole internet to our will, nor can we force our citizens to log off or be civil to each other online. What we can do is help foster systems that are Canadian 鈥� in both territory and values.

Given the risks we face, anything is better than what we have now.听