In an era of viral headlines and TikTok storytimes, staying informed has never been easier and more dependent on digital platforms. For better or worse, social media has become the de facto newsstand for tens of millions of Canadians. But what happens when this newsstand disappears?
In 2023, the Canadian government passed Bill C-18, also known as the Online News Act. Its goal was to make digital platforms, such as Meta and Google, compensate Canadian news outlets for linking or sharing their content. In theory, Bill C-18 is a bold defense of Canadian journalism. While digital platforms rake in billions from online advertising, local news outlets are struggling to stay afloat, many shutting down due to shrinking revenues. The bill aims to correct this imbalance, but in practice, its expected impact falls short of its intent. Meta responded to the bill by enacting a blanket ban on all content classified as news, regardless of origin, when accessed from within Canada — a move affecting platforms that, for many, serve as a primary source of breaking news and public health updates.
Bill C-18 is not alone. Its older sibling, Bill C-11 (the Online Streaming Act), similarly aims to promote Canadian content by requiring social streaming networks and creators to recommend programming classified as “Canadian” by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). The determination of Canadian programming is based on the CRTC’s points-based certification system, with some key criteria being whether Canadians fill key creative roles, whether 75% of production’s service costs are paid to Canadians, and whether Canadian resources are used during production.
However, while both policies are rooted in cultural protectionism, they reflect a growing pattern of digital policy overreach that sidelines actual users in favour of nationalistic optics. What began as a well-meaning effort to bolster Canadian media has instead created an information vacuum where Canadians are not able to readily access both local and international content. Such a vacuum is not only dangerous in the context of free media and news access but also sets a concerning precedent for how well-meaning regulation can result in information suppression, even in democratic nations.
In attempting to protect journalism, Bill C-18 has unintentionally undermined news visibility — especially for those who lack easy alternatives for accessing reliable news. When Bill C-18 incited Meta to block Canadian news from its platforms, most affected were younger adults who rely on social media for community and health updates, rather than tech giants or media executives. In the same year as the implementation of Bill C-18, Kaiser & Partners released its annual survey measuring perceived reliability of news sources, revealing that 85% of Gen Z respondents report seeking Canadian news on social media platforms rather than traditional news platforms.
As a young Canadian, I have experienced how this discrepancy in access to information manifests itself as a disconnect between people from across the world. While I was in China — a country known for its state censorship — I sent my brother a Canadian news post on Instagram from The Washington Post. He was unable to open it, not because China had blocked it, but because Meta had, as a result of the Canadian Bill C-18.
Canada, in an attempt to support its news industry, has created a Western version of a content firewall. It may not look like China’s Great Firewall, a control system restricting Chinese users from accessing the global Internet, but the result is similar: restricted access to information, limited visibility of independent journalism, and censorship under the guise of protection and advancing the national economy.
When wildfires hit northern Canada in mid-2023, Bill C-18 turned Meta’s blocking of news from imprudent to dangerous. Families received their evacuation messages through word-of-mouth or radio rather than news media sites on social media. For most, these workarounds were enough to spread the word, but for those without families or friends nearby to warn them, the blocking of news content compromised the everyday health safety net of the 30,000 people under evacuation orders. Such conditions create a social media void once filled with accurate Canadian and international news.
In the absence of credible, shareable journalism, social media platforms have become flooded with misinformation to fill the gap. Searching “vaccine” on Instagram is more likely to return conspiracy-laden reels rather than anything from the Public Health Agency of Canada. Worse is the fact that most of these misleading posts are often emotionally-charged and algorithmically promoted. A mom-of-two sharing the “disgusting” ingredients in vaccines is more likely to go viral than a provincial health update. When citizens see influencers debunking vaccines while their governments and news outlets appear silent online, the result is confusion and distrust, which has the potential to manifest in delayed or dangerous medical decisions threatening public health, such as hesitancy towards vaccines.
Democracies thrive on free, open access to information and expression of opinion. When protectionist policy means access to basic health knowledge becomes a market commodity, then policymakers have lost sight of the purpose of journalism and public service media.
At its core, Bill C-18 is a policy rooted in the belief that Canadian content and journalism must be preserved, even if it means forcing digital platforms to do it. Despite being well-meaning, the Canadian government’s protectionist mindset neglects the fact that national identity rises as a result of unique international perspectives, not by promoting Canadian media through bills that focus solely on Canadian journalism or programming.
These perspectives, from foreign reporting on global affairs to immigrant educators and creators — add layers of nuance, context, and inspiration that are essential to a modern Canadian identity. Foreign culture and viewpoints heavily contribute to the national identity, as almost one in four Canadians are immigrants. Canada cannot pride itself on its “diversity [enriching] cultural expression”, as stated in a Government of Canada multiculturalism statement, when its government’s actions enact policies that treat Canadian content as the be-all and end-all to preserving Canadian business and culture. Such censorship in the media, indirect or otherwise, threatens the foundations of a democracy being in the hands of the people.
The solution, then, is innovation: uplifting Canadian voices is possible with policies that elevate local reporting without suppressing global access, guaranteeing every Canadian the right to reliable, real-time information. Norway has led by example with such policies, supporting news outlets with direct subsidies based on need, circulation, and diversity of voices. In Canada, such subsidies would ensure small outlets can survive without Bill C-18 requiring compensation every time an article is shared on social media. If Canada’s government is dedicated to upholding Canadian culture, directly supporting local businesses themselves while simultaneously opening up news access on digital platforms seems like the first logical step to a self-sufficient Canadian identity.
Through a broader lens, however, social media companies continue to extract immense value from journalism. Platforms like Meta profit when users engage with news stories — whether through direct links, screenshots, or commentary — even though these platforms contribute nothing to the cost of producing that content. Any comprehensive solution must reckon with this dynamic. As such, increased taxes or regulations of these digital platforms would help redistribute platform profits into a sustainable media fund for the Canadian subsidies.
Canada’s Bill C-18 raises a discussion that seems to be increasingly prevalent in Western democracies today, about how far a government’s “good intentions” can really go. If access to journalism and media is not prioritized as a fundamental right, the consequences will go beyond a misaligned Instagram feed. A society that cannot freely access credible information cannot make informed decisions. Without this, democracy weakens.
Canada’s attempt to uplift local journalism should not come at the cost of suppressing the global, the accessible, and the essential. In trying to defend democratic ideals, Bill C-18 risks contradicting them entirely.
Ultimately, if Western governments like Canada can make these mistakes, others will follow, and as citizens of a democratic society, it is our responsibility to identify the line between protection and control.
