Bursting the Bubble: Why Independent Voices Matter in the Digital Age

Photo by Hebert Santos

In today's media landscape, the channels through which we receive and share information are increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few powerful entities. This consolidation raises important questions about who controls our public discourse and how we can maintain authentic voices in an era of corporate media dominance.

The Corporate Takeover of Canadian Media

Print Media Concentration

The Canadian media landscape offers a stark example of foreign ownership concentration. Postmedia, which owns 32 newspapers in Alberta, 57 in Ontario, and numerous publications across other provinces including the influential National Post and Financial Post, is majority owned by Chatham Asset Management – an American hedge fund. This means that a significant portion of Canada's newspaper industry is controlled by foreign financial interests.

Vancouver, a city of three million people, has just two major newspapers: the Vancouver Sun and the Province. Both are owned by Postmedia, cementing what media expert Marc Edge describes as a monopolistic practice that our own Competition Bureau has failed to prevent.

In early 2022, Postmedia further expanded its empire by purchasing Brunswick News Inc. from J.D. Irving Inc., including nine newspapers in New Brunswick and a parcel delivery business. This acquisition created what amounts to a virtual monopoly in the region, as the Irving family had previously owned every daily newspaper in the province except the French-language paper L'Acadie Nouvelle.

Black Press, which owns 82 newspapers in BC and Alberta plus 55 in Washington, Alaska, and Hawai'i, is another example of concentrated media ownership crossing national boundaries.

Television Dominance

The television sector shows even more alarming concentration than print media. Canada has the highest concentrated TV ownership among all G8 countries and ranks second for the most concentrated television viewership globally. Just a handful of companies control the vast majority of what Canadians watch.

The two largest broadcasters, BCE and Corus, capture half (50%) of total television revenues and a staggering 73% of the tuning in the English-language market. When we look at the five largest broadcasters, they generate over 88% of total revenues and garner just under 90% of the tuning share in the English-language market.

This concentration is particularly concerning as Canadians continue to transition away from traditional television to digital platforms, with traditional TV usage dropping from 89% in 2013 to 72% in 2023. Despite this shift, the same major corporations are positioning themselves to dominate the digital space.

The CRTC has attempted to address this concentration by imposing limits on broadcasting licences to ensure no company controls more than 45% of the total television audience share in a given market. However, critics argue these measures have been insufficient as media mergers continue to be approved that favour big media companies over the public interest.

The current battle between traditional broadcasters and streaming giants further complicates this landscape. Companies like Rogers have argued that CRTC regulations are now putting traditional broadcasters at a disadvantage against online streaming companies, while the CRTC is working to implement the Online Streaming Act to bring streaming services under its regulatory framework.

Radio Consolidation

In the radio sector, the five largest ownership groups (BCE, Cogeco, Corus, Rogers, and Stingray) garnered 62% of total commercial radio revenues in 2019-2020. BCE (109 stations) and Rogers (57 stations) alone accounted for over 35% of total radio revenues.

This concentration is particularly concerning in certain regions. In New Brunswick, for example, the Irving business empire owns all English-language daily newspapers and most weeklies, leading Senator Joan Fraser to note, "We didn't find anywhere else in the developed world a situation like the situation in New Brunswick."

The Billionaire Takeover of Social Media

Photo by Viralyft

While traditional media consolidation is concerning, the control of social media platforms by billionaires presents an even more immediate threat to information integrity.

Elon Musk's X: Power and Control in Action

When Elon Musk acquired Twitter (now X) in 2022, he immediately began wielding his ownership power in ways that fundamentally altered the platform:

• Laid off approximately 75% of staff, including much of the trust and safety teams

• Eliminated rules banning hate speech and disinformation

• Reinstated previously banned accounts, including those of extremists

• Dissolved the Trust and Safety Council responsible for Twitter's policies on hate speech and harmful content

Despite initially promising a "content moderation council with widely diverse viewpoints," this council was never formed. Instead, Musk has personally made content decisions that align with his political views.

In December 2022, Musk suspended multiple journalists from CNN, The Washington Post, and other outlets who had been covering the ElonJet incident, claiming they violated a newly created policy against "doxxing". This move was widely condemned by news organizations and lawmakers from the U.S. and EU as hypocritical given Musk's claims of being a "free speech absolutist."

More recently, Musk has aligned himself closely with President Donald Trump, putting over $200 million into Trump's presidential campaign last year. In February 2025, X agreed to pay $10 million to settle Trump's lawsuit against the platform (filed before Musk's ownership) that alleged censorship.

The Billionaire-Political Nexus

The ownership of major social media platforms by billionaires isn't inherently problematic, but it raises concerns when these individuals actively engage in political advocacy while controlling vital channels of public discourse.

Elon Musk's acquisition of Twitter (now X) and his subsequent political activities highlight this issue. Since purchasing the platform, Musk has made significant donations to political campaigns and openly advocated for specific candidates and policies. This direct political engagement, combined with his control over a major social media platform, creates potential conflicts of interest in content moderation and policy enforcement.

Similarly, Meta's Mark Zuckerberg has faced scrutiny for his political connections and the company's varying approaches to content moderation. Meta's policies often seem to shift based on political pressures, with different standards applied in different regions of the world. For instance, while Meta has strict hate speech policies in some countries, it has been accused of allowing inflammatory content to proliferate in others, particularly in developing nations experiencing political unrest.

This inconsistency became even more apparent in January 2025, when Zuckerberg announced that Meta would no longer rely on independent third-party fact-checkers across Facebook, Instagram, and Threads, instead adopting a system similar to X's "community notes". While presented as a move towards user empowerment, critics worry this change could allow more misinformation to spread, particularly in politically sensitive contexts.

The concern isn't that these billionaires own platforms, but rather how their personal political advocacy and business interests might influence the flow of information on platforms that have become essential to public discourse. As these individuals navigate relationships with various governments and political figures worldwide, questions arise about how these connections might affect their platforms' policies and, by extension, the information available to billions of users.

Foreign Influence and Platform Manipulation

The concentration of platform ownership creates vulnerabilities that can be exploited by foreign actors. A study from the University of Oxford documented that some 70 countries around the world are engaged in manipulating social media to serve domestic and foreign policy ends, up from 48 countries in 2018 and 28 countries in 2017.

Foreign influence operations have become increasingly sophisticated. In June 2024, Twitter disclosed 32,242 accounts linked to long-running influence operations by China, Russia, and Turkey. These operations aim to spread disinformation, conspiracy theories, and harmful messages.

The risk is amplified when platform owners have international business interests or political alignments that might make them susceptible to foreign influence. Musk's recent activities in Germany and Turkey, for instance, raise questions about potential conflicts between his business interests and platform governance decisions.

Despite positioning himself as a "free speech absolutist," Musk has shown willingness to comply with government censorship requests. Under his leadership, Twitter has approved 83% of censorship requests from authoritarian governments, including Turkey and India.

The Responsibility to Speak Truth

In our increasingly polarized information landscape, silence in the face of misinformation becomes a form of complicity. When we encounter conspiracy theories or misleading narratives—whether online or in person—remaining quiet allows these ideas to go unchallenged, potentially reinforcing the speaker's belief that their perspective is widely accepted.

Speaking your truth isn't about winning arguments; it's about ensuring diverse viewpoints are represented in conversations that might otherwise become echo chambers. When someone in your network shares misinformation, they may be surrounded by algorithms and social circles that reinforce those beliefs. Your voice might be the only counterbalance they encounter.

This is especially crucial in online spaces, where filter bubbles can create entirely separate realities for different users. By respectfully offering alternative perspectives, evidence, and thoughtful questions, you help maintain the integrity of our collective information ecosystem. Countering misinformation is not a spectator sport—it requires active participation from all of us who value truth and nuanced understanding.

Remember that effective communication often means finding common ground first, asking questions to understand others' perspectives, and sharing information in ways that invite dialogue rather than defensiveness. The goal isn't to "win" but to expand the conversation beyond simplistic narratives that divide us.

By speaking up—thoughtfully and with empathy—you contribute to a healthier information environment for everyone. In a world where algorithms and corporate interests increasingly shape what information reaches us, your authentic voice becomes an essential counterbalance.

Speaking Up: Channels for Independent Voices

Photo by Omar Ramadan

Given these challenges, how can we ensure diverse perspectives continue to thrive? Here are some approaches:

1. Embrace Decentralized Social Media: The Bluesky Example

Bluesky offers a promising alternative to corporate-controlled social networks as an example of decentralized social media. Built on the open-source AT Protocol, Bluesky provides users with greater control over their online experience and data. With over 33 million users as of today, it represents a growing movement toward user-controlled platforms.

Key features of Bluesky include:

• Decentralized architecture: Bluesky operates on a federated model, allowing users to port their data across different platforms using the AT Protocol

• Algorithmic choice: Users can select or create custom algorithms to organize their feed, offering unmatched personalization

• Enhanced privacy: Bluesky is committed to not using user content for AI training, in contrast to some other platforms

• User autonomy: The platform provides tools for users to shape their experience, including customizable feeds, post visibility management, and profile personalization

• Open-source development: Bluesky's code is publicly accessible, promoting transparency and allowing external contributions

• Moderation tools: Bluesky offers advanced moderation features and has open-sourced its moderation software, Ozone

By prioritizing user control, transparency, and decentralization, Bluesky represents a shift towards a more democratic and user-centric social media landscape. Hopefully other platforms will adopt these forward-thinking frameworks, too.

2. Personal Blogs and Independent Publishing

Just as I'm doing with this blog post you're reading, maintaining your own platform gives you complete control over your content and how it's presented. Being yourself on your blog gives it a distinctive flavour and helps it stand out among the countless others online. As people get to know more about the person behind the blog, they can more easily connect with your content.

Sharing personal stories and perspectives can be therapeutic for you and inspirational for readers experiencing similar situations. While privacy concerns are valid, thoughtful personal sharing builds credibility and helps win the trust of your readers.

3. Face-to-Face Conversations and Community Building

Photo by Ksenia Chernaya

Perhaps the most powerful way to break through media echo chambers is through direct human connection. Face-to-face conversations allow for nuance, empathy, and understanding that often gets lost in digital communication.

Building communities around shared interests or concerns creates spaces where diverse perspectives can be heard and respected. These personal connections form the foundation of authentic information sharing that corporate media cannot control.

Beyond digital spaces, physical gatherings remain powerful tools for information sharing and community building. Consider organizing or participating in:

• Local meetups focused on topics you're passionate about, from environmental issues to local politics

• Community forums addressing specific challenges or opportunities in your region

• Public rallies or demonstrations supporting causes you believe in, whether it's social justice, climate action, or economic reform

• Workshops at community centres or libraries on various subjects, from practical skills to current affairs

• Regular discussion groups that explore books, documentaries, or current events from multiple perspectives

• Volunteer opportunities with local organizations working on issues you care about

• Town halls or public meetings where you can engage directly with local officials and decision-makers

• Cultural events that celebrate diversity and promote cross-cultural understanding in your community

• or just a simple hangout with friends or family to chat over coffee!

Remember, the goal is to connect with others who share your interests or concerns, creating spaces for open dialogue and collective action on the issues that matter most to you and your community.

In-person connections not only strengthen community bonds but create resilient networks for information sharing that exist outside corporate control. By engaging directly with others in your community, you can foster a more informed and engaged citizenry, capable of critically evaluating media messages and working together to promote a more diverse and democratic media landscape.

The Path Forward

As corporate interests continue to consolidate control over traditional and social media, our responsibility to share information independently becomes increasingly important. By embracing decentralized platforms like Bluesky, maintaining personal blogs, and fostering direct human connections, we can ensure that diverse voices continue to be heard.

The future of authentic communication doesn't lie in hoping corporate media will reform itself. Rather, it depends on our willingness to create and maintain independent channels for sharing ideas, breaking through echo chambers, and speaking truth regardless of who owns the platforms.

In this era of media consolidation, your voice—shared thoughtfully and intentionally—is more important than ever.

(Sources)