The Rise of Shadow Banning and Censorship: A Threat to Freedom of Speech in Canada

In the age of digital communication, social media platforms have become a significant avenue for individuals to express their opinions, share information, and engage in conversations on a wide range of topics. However, the rise of shadow banning and censorship on these platforms has raised concerns about the erosion of free speech, particularly in democratic societies like Canada. Shadow banning, in particular, is a method of suppressing a user's content without their knowledge—users are not told that their posts are hidden or their engagement limited, but they notice a stark decline in interactions and visibility. While shadow banning can occur for various reasons, it often affects content creators and activists who challenge mainstream narratives or government policies.

Shadow banning refers to the covert practice of restricting a user's content on social media platforms. Unlike traditional bans, where users are notified that their accounts or posts have been removed or blocked, shadow banning is more insidious. Users can continue to post, but their content is deliberately hidden from broader audiences. This type of ban primarily targets individuals whose content may be deemed controversial, critical of government actions, or in opposition to mainstream media narratives. As a result, these users experience a significant decrease in engagement—fewer likes, shares, comments, and overall visibility—despite maintaining an active presence.

The growing use of shadow banning is particularly concerning because it is largely undetectable. Content creators may have no idea they are being targeted until they notice unusual drops in engagement metrics. This undermines their ability to reach their audience, spread their message, and participate in meaningful dialogue on important issues.

For activists, content creators, and individuals like myself who advocate for family law reform or expose government corruption, shadow banning is a direct attack on our ability to communicate with the public. I have personally experienced shadow banning and censorship for speaking out about the flaws in the family court system and the manipulation and coercive control that exists within it. Over the years, as I fought for reform and justice, my social media accounts were tampered with, and my reach was systematically reduced. Despite having a global audience interested in my content, I noticed a sharp decline in the visibility of my posts, videos, and articles related to family law reform and government incompetence.

My content, which highlights systemic corruption and failures in government institutions, challenges the status quo. This often puts me at odds with mainstream narratives, making me a prime target for censorship. Social media platforms, under the guise of community guidelines, began reducing the reach of my posts—engagement dropped drastically, and the views on my videos dwindled without any explanation. I documented this, believing it to be an intentional move to silence those who are critical of the government or advocate for change.

The reality is that shadow banning and censorship have become tools to stifle dissent, particularly in areas where governments are failing their citizens. Whether it is content on family law reform, government corruption, or human rights violations, shadow banning ensures that alternative perspectives are suppressed, and only narratives that align with the government's agenda are promoted.

In Canada, the legality of shadow banning and censorship is murky at best. While social media companies are private entities with their own terms of service, these platforms wield immense power in shaping public discourse. When governments pressure these platforms to suppress certain viewpoints, as we have seen with Meta (Facebook and Instagram), the line between private censorship and government censorship becomes blurred.

The Trudeau government, in particular, has come under scrutiny for its approach to free speech and its attempts to regulate online content. Bill C-10 and Bill C-11, for example, have been widely criticized as efforts to control what Canadians can see and say online. While these bills were originally presented as efforts to regulate streaming services and protect Canadian content, critics argue that they give the government excessive power to dictate what is allowed on social media platforms. Bill C-11, also known as the Online Streaming Act, gives the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) authority over online content, potentially leading to a chilling effect on free speech.

One of the most dangerous pieces of legislation currently on the table is Bill C-63, a bill ostensibly aimed at protecting children from online abuse and exploitation. While the bill's intention sounds noble, its wording is problematic. Bill C-63 effectively removes freedom of speech protections by criminalizing certain types of expression as hate speech, even when that speech does not incite violence or pose a direct threat. This bill goes far beyond protecting children—it paves the way for governments to censor individuals and groups based on vague and subjective definitions of hate speech.

The bill could, for instance, be used to criminalize individuals who express dissenting views on topics like gender identity, immigration, government policies, or even family law reform. This broad and ambiguous language allows for the potential targeting of people who simply have a difference of opinion, marking them as purveyors of hate speech. As a result, many fear that Bill C-63 could be weaponized to silence political dissidents and activists under the guise of protecting vulnerable populations.

This is particularly dangerous in a democratic society like Canada, where freedom of speech is a fundamental right enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 2(b) of the Charter guarantees Canadians the right to freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication. However, the introduction of laws like Bill C-63 threatens to erode these rights by creating a legal framework that criminalizes free speech.

The issue of shadow banning and censorship is not unique to Canada. Around the world, governments are increasingly pressuring social media companies to censor content that goes against their policies. In the United States, for example, Meta recently admitted to facing pressure from the government to suppress certain viewpoints and censor citizens who challenge official narratives. This raises significant concerns about the role of private corporations in facilitating government censorship.

While social media platforms argue that they are merely enforcing community standards, it is clear that these standards are often influenced by political considerations. Governments, particularly authoritarian ones, have long sought to control the flow of information. Now, in the digital age, they are leveraging the power of social media platforms to silence dissenting voices. This is a troubling trend that is becoming increasingly common in democratic societies, where freedom of speech is supposed to be protected.

In Canada, the Trudeau government has been at the forefront of this movement, introducing legislation that seeks to regulate online content and suppress certain viewpoints. Bills like C-10, C-11, and C-63 are all part of a broader effort to control the narrative and silence critics. This trend, if left unchecked, will have devastating consequences for freedom of speech and democracy in Canada.

As someone who has been advocating for family law reform, exposing government corruption, and challenging the status quo, I have experienced firsthand the effects of censorship. For years, I have been using my platform to speak out about the injustices within the family court system and the government's failure to address these issues. I have organized rallies, created videos, and written articles to raise awareness and demand change.

However, as my content gained traction and began to resonate with people, I noticed a disturbing trend. My social media posts were reaching fewer people, my videos were being suppressed, and my engagement was dropping without explanation. It became clear to me that I was being shadow banned and censored for my advocacy. The government, unwilling to address the flaws in the family court system, was pressuring social media platforms to suppress content that challenged their policies.

This is not an isolated incident. Governments around the world, including Canada, are using their influence to pressure social media companies to censor content that goes against their policies. Whether it is content related to family law reform, government corruption, or human rights, dissenting voices are being silenced under the guise of protecting the public from "misinformation" or "hate speech."

The fight against censorship is not an easy one, but it is a battle that must be fought if we are to preserve our fundamental right to free speech. One of the most important things we can do is to raise awareness about the issue and call attention to the ways in which governments are using social media platforms to silence dissent. We must hold our governments accountable for their actions and demand transparency in the way online content is regulated.

In Canada, this means actively opposing bills like C-63 and urging our MPs and senators to reject legislation that threatens our freedom of speech. We must also support organizations and activists who are fighting for free speech and pushing back against censorship. Furthermore, we must continue to speak out, even when our voices are being silenced. The more we raise our concerns and highlight the injustices happening around us, the harder it will be for governments to suppress our voices.

Free speech is under attack, not just in authoritarian regimes but in democratic societies like Canada. The introduction of bills like C-63 and the use of shadow banning and censorship by social media platforms are clear indicators that our right to free speech is being eroded. If we do not take action now, we risk losing the ability to express dissent and challenge government policies without fear of censorship or retaliation.

Now, more than ever, we must stand up for our right to free speech. We must speak out against censorship, demand transparency from our governments, and push back against legislation that threatens to criminalize dissent. The time to act is now—before it is too late.