High-profile liberal figures are collaborating to lobby corporate advertisers to boycott Twitter if soon-to-be-owner Elon Musk brings in his promised policy of unrestrained free speech to the platform.

Twenty-six NGOs and advocacy groups penned a letter telling of their frustrations about Musk’s plan to allow freedom of expression on the social media platform.

Musk responded to the letter inquiring about the authors’ source funding. The letter had been written by a number of different groups, including George Soros’s Open Society Foundation, NGOs founded by former Clinton and Obama administration staffers, wealthy Democrat foundation donors, labour unions, and even the governments of some European nations. 

“Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter will further toxify our information ecosystem and be a direct threat to public safety, especially among those already most vulnerable and marginalized,” the alliance wrote.

They warned businesses in the letter advertising on Twitter “risks association with a platform amplifying hate, extremism, health misinformation, and conspiracy theorists.’ 

“Under Musk’s management, Twitter risks becoming a cesspool of misinformation, with your brand attached, polluting our information ecosystem in a time where trust in institutions and news media is already at an all-time low,” the authors said.

“Your ad dollars can either fund Musk’s vanity project or hold him to account. We call on you to demand Musk uphold these basic standards of community trust and safety, and to pull your advertising spending from Twitter, if they are not.”

Musk, in response to the letter, tweeted: “Who funds these organizations that want to control your access to information? Let’s investigate.” Musk added: “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.”

In April, the Twitter board accepted Musk’s $44-billion offer to buy out the company. Musk will take the social media platform into private ownership with the goal of liberating it from what many people consider unreasonable censorship and the banning of its users.

“Free speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy and Twitter is the digital town square where matters vital to the future of humanity are debated,” Musk said in a statement included in the press release announcing the $44 billion deal.

“I also want to make Twitter better than ever by enhancing the product with new features, making the algorithms open source to increase trust, defeating the spam bots, and authenticating all humans. Twitter has tremendous potential — I look forward to working with the company and the community of users to unlock it.”

Amanda Brown is a reporter with the Western Standard
abrown@westernstandard.news
Twitter: @WS_JournoAmanda

After revelations the Public Health Agency bought data on millions of telecom clients in the name of monitoring pandemic lockdowns, MPs say Parliament should regulate telecom companies’ collection and sale of cellphone customers’ mobility data.

“I had not seen anything on this scale with such a large number of individuals’ mobility data being accessed without even any notice to the individual,” Ann Cavoukian, former Ontario privacy commissioner, testified at February 10 hearings.

“Forget about consent, but just notice.”

Blacklock’s Reporter said the ethics committee in a report said Parliament must “regulate the activities of private companies in the collection, use, sharing, storage and destruction of Canadian mobility data and that the government ensure private companies have obtained meaningful consent from their customers for the collection of such data.”

Blacklock’s last December 21 disclosed the monitoring program after the PHA issued a notice to contractors, Operator-Based Location Data And Services For Public Health Mobility Analysis. The PHA proposed to extend the data scoop for up to five years.

Parliament subsequently voted 173 to 155 against any extension of the program. A data contract expired March 18.

The ethics committee also recommended federal departments and agencies require data suppliers to show that “Canadians have the option to opt-out of the data collection” and that protections of the Privacy Act apply to “the collection, use and disclosure of de-identified and aggregated data.”

Telecom executives testifying at committee hearings acknowledged customers would not know all commercial uses made of their aggregated data.

“I recognize some individuals want to know everything that’s going on with their data, some don’t want to know anything and some want to know just in time, when they’re thinking about it,” Pamela Snively, vice-president at Telus Communications, testified February 17.

“I am aware data can be used for good and I am aware it can be used for ways that are not good, as well. I think it’s absolutely critically important that we are paying attention to how data is used.”

Bloc Québécois MP René Villemure (Trois-Rivières, Que.) noted Telus customers who agreed to terms of service would never know their aggregated data would end in the Government of Canada’s hands.

“I suppose it’s normal that a Telus user would think you would use data to improve service,” said Villemure. “However they might not expect it to be used for something else.”

“I think it’s challenging to know what anyone expects,” replied Snively.

“Does a user consent to having their personal information de-identified?” asked Villemure. “We have a lot of information in our privacy policy on our website about de-identification,” replied Snively.

“Users have to know they should go to the website to find this out, though,” said MP Villemure. “That’s correct,” replied Snively.

It was only because of COVID-19 that Canada saw reductions in greenhouse gases, says Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault.

But Guilbeault said he didn’t know what portion of reductions was due to his climate change program or the recession.

“We know 2020 because of the pandemic is an anomaly,” Guilbeault testified at the Commons environment committee on Tuesday.

“I have not spoken at great length about the 2020 emissions reduction numbers that we’ve seen in the last inventory.”

Blacklock’s Reporter said the environment department in an April 15 summary of its National Inventory Report 1990-2020 said the COVID-19 recession marked a decrease in emissions. Guilbeault in a statement at the time called the figures encouraging.

“We can see that Canada is moving in the right direction,” he said.

Guilbeault acknowledged the recession was a factor.

“What was a result of the economic slowdown that was obviously a result of the pandemic and what was a result of measures that we have been deploying in Canada over the last few years?” he asked.

“What the experts tell me is that it is very difficult to discern what comes from the plan and what would be more pandemic related.”

“If the plan is that to get an 8.9% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions that we get a 5.4% contraction in GDP, you would agree with me that is not a great plan,” said Conservative MP Kyle Seeback (Dufferin-Caledon, Ont.).

“We make no such linkages,” replied Guilbeault.

National emissions fell 9% from 738 million tonnes to 672 million tonnes. Reductions included an 11% decline in factory emissions “partially attributable to plants that closed,” a 17% cut in transport emissions “linked to a decrease in the vehicle kilometres traveled” with travel bans, and a 44% cut in jet fuel emissions due to the collapse of air travel.

Guilbeault said he remained committed to the carbon tax but would not say if the current fee schedule is sufficient. Cabinet originally capped the tax at $50 per tonne, the equivalent of  12¢ a litre on gasoline, then raised the cap to $170 per tonne by 2030.

“The carbon tax is clearly hurting Canadians,” said Conservative MP Dan Mazier (Dauphin-Swan River, Man.). “Can you promise Canadians today your government will not raise the carbon tax above $170 a tonne after 2030? I want a yes or no answer.”

“We have made a commitment all the way to 2030,” replied Guilbeault. “We have made no commitment as to what happens after 2030.”

The higher $170 per tonne charge is the equivalent of a total 27¢ more per litre of propane, 34¢ per cubic metre of natural gas, 40¢ more per litre of gasoline, 44¢ for aviation fuel and an extra 47¢ per litre for diesel.