Figuring Out Their Angle

Todd Hayen

A federal law was recently passed in Canada called the Online News Act, or Bill C-18. Basically, this bill stops major online giants such as Google or Facebook (Meta) from posting news articles or links from any source deemed a “news outlet.”

For example, when I post a link to an article I’ve written that OffGuardian, the link disappears from my Facebook feed and a blurb shows up that says this link is blocked from Canadian readers. (UPDATE: I am barred from even posting links to articles from any news source because I am Canadian.)

Apparently others, in other countries, can see it, but no Canuckistani citizens can. Even though OffGuardian doesn’t give a hoot in hell if their articles show up on FB without compensation (an assumption on my part). In fact, I would assume they would encourage it as that is how they increase circulation.

The lawmakers claim that this bill was designed to protect the news source, such as The Washington Post, The New York Times, or even alternative news sources like the one I just mentioned, from lost revenue. The writers of the bill, coming straight from their big hearts of love and concern, claim they are looking out for the big news outlets as well as the little guy by blocking social media, including Google, from freely distributing their proprietary property: The News.

Right.

First of all, I have never heard a complaint from Big News about people posting links to their online pages. And surely they can all take care of themselves, as they do when they put up paywalls and limit the articles a person can read before having to purchase a subscription. Do they really need the government looking out for their interests?

I think these guys know how to market and how to advertise and how to effectively use the internet to sell their product. Censorship? Oh no, no, no, that’s not it at all!! “We are trying to make a law that is fair, thus correcting something that has not been fair for a long time.” Ha ha.

Seems like this fits the old adage “if it looks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, it is a duck.” Or “you can dress a pig up in satin and lace, but it’s still a pig”—Ergo: “if it looks like censorship, reads like censorship, and has the overall effect of censorship, then it is censorship.” Do they really think we can’t see through this?

I remember the old Cheech and Chong joke (remember them? If you are ancient like me, you will) “Two guys walking down the road see a pile of dog poop. One says, “hey that looks like dog poop.” Then he bends over and touches it. He says, “feels like dog poop.” The other bends over and sniffs it. Says, “smells like dog poop.” Then he sticks his finger in it and tastes it. He says, “tastes like dog poop.” The other one says, “Well, good thing we didn’t step in it!!”

This applies to most sheep (sorry! I used that damn word again!) I mean really, folks. You all do your little “vetting”…“does this look legit? Does mommy and daddy government say this is good for us?” Along with a few other “tastes, touches, and feels” and then you all determine it is just fine (when I say “you” I don’t mean all of you reading this, I don’t think YOU fall for it. And I know the Cheech and Chong analogy doesn’t really fit but twist it around a little bit and you’ll see why I thought of it.)

I use this example to illustrate the fact that many indeed can’t see through to the dog poop. As amazing as it seems, this sort of thing flies right past the sheep-types. If one of these poor mindless creatures came home to a house that was being bulldozed and were told by the government, “we think a spy lived in your house 20 years ago and we want to make sure he doesn’t come back,” they would shrug their shoulders and look for a refrigerator box under the freeway to bed down in that night. Nothing fazes them. It is all ok if Big Brother says it is ok. Big Brother obviously knows what is best, and he is always looking after us.

Sorry to those sensitive ones out there, I am being mean to our fluffy friends. Trust me, I still love them.

Just for yucks, here is the Facebook explanation blurb they pull up when you click “learn more.”

I love the last line: “My comment has been labeled as sharing news content. What can I do?” And the answer is, “Shut the f-ck up and follow the rules, you little pissant!!” Nice.

If you look at the actual bill, it is interesting how the focus is entirely on this ruse of protecting the news source and plays this game of “good guy” trying to do what is fair by the poor hapless news purveyors. “Big bad Facebook is stealing your property, and we are here to protect you.” If that were really the truth, why not make a law that requires the “news intermediaries” (Facebook, Google, et al) to pay a statutory fee for news they present on their pages. No, no, no, instead they just deny the link some poor bonehead (like me) innocently puts on his Facebook feed—they censor it so no one sees it and puts up a disclaimer so all can see what they are pretending they are up to.

Since all the big legacy news sources are in on the whole agenda, they don’t care at all. It doesn’t do them any good, nor does it do them any harm. They already have their paywalls, their subscription requirements, all Facebook et al to them is free advertising. It is, in fact, the smaller alternative news sources that will suffer greatly. They depend on the “intermediaries” to spread their word, which often is in contradiction to the mainstream media, i.e., the news they report is actual truth. This is the real target of C-18 —“misinformation”—again, i.e. the actual truth.

Sheep don’t care about any of this. In fact, even if they knew the prime directive was to keep truth from the public, they would be all for it. The truth, to sheep, is viewed as misinformation and thus it is typically annoying. Anything that ruffles their natural wool coats is to be avoided. None of them wants to take any sort of responsibility. It’s just easier that way.

Many have said in the past that the “angle” the big boys take is to entice with the carrot, and then whack with the stick.

Bill C-18 is a case in point. But have you noticed how the carrot is becoming less and less sweet?

I have read that this is typical as well. Pretty soon there will just be a stick. No carrot. The carrot in this example is more of a neutral sort of thing. It isn’t really enticing, but it also isn’t pure stick. They have disguised their little C-18 bill by pretending it is about something it isn’t.

The carrot isn’t as sweet as usual because having news articles you post on FB just ripped out of your feed is not very appealing. But at least they have what seems to be a fair reason—or is it? Point being, the carrot and the stick are disguised as something they are not.

Many fall for it and just shrug their shoulders figuring it is some copyright thing no one in the free world has ever quite understood anyway, and we’re done with it. Whatever. We are slowly being acclimated to the brave new world where it will be stick only.

The march toward totalitarianism rambles on, like Sherman’s “scorched earth” March to the Sea during the American Civil war—this march toward censorship and dictatorship is a march of utter destruction of freedoms and rights, designed to leave us destitute and hopeless—only right now the scorching is a little disguised, soon it won’t be so much. Bill C-18 has upped the ante a notch or two. This law is much more than it seems.

Todd Hayen is a registered psychotherapist practicing in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. He holds a PhD in depth psychotherapy and an MA in Consciousness Studies. He specializes in Jungian, archetypal, psychology. Todd also writes for his own substack, which you can read here