This year will be the 15th anniversary of the Arab Spring, the wave of protests in the Middle East in which social media, and Twitter in particularly, played a part. Then, Twitter served as a digital town square where citizens organically exchanged ideas freely, often to the detriment of despots and authoritarians.
Today, that forum has been subverted into a tool that threatens our national unity at home.
With mounting evidence that by its owner to promote divisive, prejudiced, and even imperialist ideas, Industry Minister Champagne must consider its role in our national public conversation.
Champagne should look to arguments made for the banning of TikTok to evaluate whether Twitter serves Canada鈥檚 best interests. Recent debates in both American and Canadian policy circles have spotlighted TikTok as a national security threat. Critics warned that the app, which is almost certainly , could sway public opinion and undermine national cohesion. These concerns prompted discussions about banning TikTok to protect democratic institutions from foreign interference.
When we examine Twitter through a similar lens, the parallels are striking. If a platform鈥檚 ownership or operational influence originates from an adversarial state, it becomes inherently suspect.
Since Elon Musk acquired Twitter, user experience has shifted alarmingly. Extremism, abusive behaviour and disinformation goes unmoderated, and many users have noticed that Twitter鈥檚 鈥淔or You鈥 feed appears to favour racially charged and nationalistic content.
To test this, I recently created a new profile. Of the first 10 posts served to me 鈥 despite the platform knowing nothing about me 鈥 six were from Elon Musk. The others included a post from a user named Bruce, whose bio claims the World Economic Forum鈥檚 agenda is 鈥淔ascism 2.0鈥; a post from user Jack, who states that anyone planning to vote Liberal is a traitor to Canada; a post from an American political correspondent celebrating the advancement of President Donald Trump鈥檚 agenda; and a post from former Liberal leadership candidate Ruby Dhalla, alleging corruption in the party.
In parallel, Musk鈥檚 public political commentary has crossed acceptable boundaries. Notably, his behaviour 鈥 such as repeated gestures that appeared to be Nazi salutes 鈥 and overt statements hinting at a desire to influence elections have telegraphed his beliefs and intent. These actions suggest that the new Twitter is less a neutral forum and more an arena for a singular, divisive viewpoint.
Amid continued remarks by Trump on the annexation of Canada, Musk, an ally of the President, has found himself a target of Canadians鈥 ire. Ontario Premier Doug Ford announced a cancellation of a contract with Musk鈥檚 Starlink internet provider, 海角社区官网Mayor Olivia Chow announced a cancellation of the city鈥檚 subsidy for Tesla drivers, and MP Charlie Angus has promoted a petition to strip Musk of his Canadian citizenship.
While all of this was happening, I’ve noticed a disturbing trend has emerged on Canadian Twitter: a surge in posts advocating for annexation. Are these messages the byproduct of free speech, or the deliberate result of algorithmic manipulation designed to inflame divisions? The possibility that Twitter鈥檚 systems are being engineered to make the loss of Canadian sovereignty more appealing should concern every Canadian. As we witness a gradual, unmistakable shift toward a homogenized 鈥 and often hateful 鈥 narrative on the platform, the need for decisive action grows.
Twitter, once a celebrated venue for political discourse, has devolved into a channel that risks foreign interference and fosters divisive ideology.
It may seem extreme, but banning Twitter might be more popular than anticipated. While it remains a valuable tool for journalists, politicians, organizations, and sports and TV fans, many are growing disillusioned with the platform鈥檚 promotion of hateful content. As some put it, you shouldn’t have to do your job in a room full of Nazis.
If Twitter were to disappear, we鈥檇 probably miss it less than we think. The value of a network lies in the people who populate it, and if those people are gone, you鈥檙e less likely to feel left out.
A ban on the platform could signal Canada鈥檚 commitment to safeguarding its national fabric and democratic dialogue. The question we must ask ourselves is simple: why should a nation that values reason and unity tolerate a foreign attack on its public discourse?
To join the conversation set a first and last name in your user profile.
Sign in or register for free to join the Conversation