We’ve been covering the trade tensions between Canada and the US more. There is a connection with that and digital rights.
Over the last few months, you probably noticed how much we have focused on the US trying to annex Canada. For some, I can see there being confusion as to why we are focusing on that when we are, well, a technology and digital rights news and analysis website. Yes, there is a connection, but I may not have made that entirely clear.
What is clear is that we are not the only site that had this shift in coverage. TechDirt, for instance, has been more closely following the breakdown of the American government which, apparently, caused confusion among readers as to why that is becoming a focus of coverage when, again, they are more about covering technology and the internet. So, Mike Masnick published an article explaining why this shift has been made.
To broadly summarize Masnick’s perspective, and there is a lot of nuance involved that clarifies his points, it’s that what has made the digital world and technological innovation is the foundation of government and law to make that all possible. Without those foundations, that technological innovation and our digital world might not necessarily be possible (or that it would look very different today). To put it another way, there is a spillover effect onto technology and digital rights with what is going on politically right now. So, it really only makes sense to get ahead of that and cover the breakdown of government because it will affect the world of technology sooner or later.
As you can tell where this is going with all of this, in light of the coverage we are offering here, Masnick is very much correct on that analysis of the situation as far as I’m concerned.
So, where does Freezenet fit in with all of this? Well, obviously, we are Canadian and, as a result, have a different vantage point on what all is happening. As a result, you see us covering the trade issues more vigorously. Simply put, Trump is pushing these tariffs on my country as a tool to create an existential threat to my country. He wants to annex Canada. It’s not going to happen, but he’s going to damn well try and he is using economic coercion to do so.
Leading up to yesterday, the Canadian broadcast media has been seemingly in denial that this was the reality. Instead, they continually suggested that Trump was simply being “bombastic” or that it was a negotiating tactic or maybe even that it really was all about the border. Part of this, I think, comes from this sort of collective belief that it was all hyperbole and that there was some sort of rational explanation to explain all of this away. The problem for the Canadian broadcast media is that there is no ‘reading the tea leaves’ or ‘alternative explanation’ to explain away the behaviour. Trump really wants Canada to cease to exist as a nation. On the lead up to when these tariffs were set to take place, even Canadian politicians began recognizing that these existential threats were real even if the broadcast media was in denial.
It wasn’t until yesterday that it seemed like the Canadian broadcast media finally began to realize that these threats were, in fact real. This was noticeable when they started bringing in guests that were openly saying that, yes, Trump wants to annex Canada and we need to seriously think about diversifying our trade partners instead of simply putting all of our trade eggs in one American basket. This is something that should’ve happened long ago, but better late than never if you ask me. Either way, the trust with America has been broken and Canada is finally reacting to this reality.
So, where’s the connection with digital rights? Well, let’s just say there is a very good reason why I’ve been eyeing the treatment of journalists and free speech lately. If the end goal is to absorb Canada into the US, how will Canadians be treated? With the far right’s appetite to suppress speech they personally don’t agree with, it becomes very telling how they react to both journalists and people they disagree with. There is already evidence that the Trump administration is moving ahead with turning various agencies (i.e. the DOJ and ICE) into internet thought police. What’s more, with the crackdown on who gets to ask the White House questions and who doesn’t, there is also an appetite to control what the media can and cannot say.
Now, that’s not to say Trump will succeed in these fantasies of controlling people’s thoughts, but that’s not also to say he won’t try. In fact, he’s already trying to do so. With Trump wanting to control speech with the power of government, it’s hard to argue that he wouldn’t want to exert that control on the Canadian population if he ever somehow manages to magically succeed in erasing Canada off the face of the earth. If Trump thinks that he has a problem controlling the thoughts of people he disagrees with, just wait until he adds the population equivalent of California that is largely permanently pissed off at America. As I’ve said in the past, good freaking luck dealing with the Quebec population, Trump, you’re going to need it.
Even as Trump fails to annex Canada, that’s not to say that we’re going to continue with business as usual as if nothing ever happened. Already, the tariffs are threatening to send prices of everything through the roof. We’re talking about the price of cell phones, desktop computers, tablets, laptops, peripherals like keyboards, mice, and headphones. How about internet connectivity? Sure, it may not be directly impacted, but if inflation hits, it’s going to eventually drive the cost of those up as well. Everything becomes less affordable and that will invariably have a detrimental impact on your digital rights. How can you, for instance, exercise your right to free speech online if you can’t afford it in the first place? Exactly.
This goes over top of the indirect impacts of what goes on in the US. It’s easy to think that if you are browsing the web from Canada, you are in some sort of bubble, insulated from whatever insane policies. That is simply not reality. For instance, a lot of web services around the world use Cloudflare to help deliver a better web product to you. Want to know where they are headquartered? San Francisco California.
What about HTTPS protection? You know, that little lock next to the URL? That is often using third party providers like Comodo as part of a web security protection service. Guess what? They are headquartered in Clifton, New Jersey.
What about webhosting? There are plenty of poplar hosting companies like Gatorhosting, Bluehost, and Dreamhost. Where’s Gatorhosting headquartered? Austin, Texas. What about Bluehost? Jacksonville, Florida. Dreamhost? Los Angeles, California.
How about DNS providers? A lot of people use GoDaddy. That is headquartered in Tempe, Arizona.
What about simply starting a simple shop? What about Etsy for instance? That is headquartered in Brooklyn, New York.
I think you can see the pattern here. Yes, you can use services that are headquartered outside of the United States, but a lot, and I mean a LOT, of critical internet infrastructure is based out of the United States. The problem is that your options become a heck of a lot more limited when you try and disconnect your web presence from the United States. That isn’t even getting into all the platforms based out of the US, software both server side and client side, and the way internet connections connect between Canada and the United States.
Simply put, what policy gets implemented in the United States will invariably have huge implications on how online businesses operate here in Canada. Some companies might be well positioned to withstand that, but a vast majority won’t be. In some cases, it may not be practically possible to do so.
So, if the US starts passing thought crime laws and demanding that all services give their praise to Trump, a vast majority of people in Canada will be impacted by that in some way or another. You really don’t have much choice in the matter.
As has been said many times over, Canada and the US is highly integrated. Technology is no exception to that. That’s why what goes on in the US will probably have an impact on Canada even if an action isn’t directly targeting Canada.
The funny thing in all of this is that this isn’t even the first time I’ve seen this question of ‘shifting to politics’ being raised. In my early days of writing, I focused on how government was increasingly getting involved in the world of technology. Specifically, before I came along, a lot of the coverage was focused on features being implemented in various file-sharing programs and what file-sharing applications are becoming popular or even the number of people using each network.
The problem was that politics was already seeping into that coverage at least as early as the original Napster getting taken down. Hashing techniques were largely a direct response to actions taken by organizations using file pollution techniques. Again, that is very lightly political. The DMCA? Yeah, political. Warrantless wiretapping? Totally political. All I was doing was responding to a changing environment in my coverage because I knew what was becoming increasingly important.
Based on my experience with fielding complaints about how things have grown “political”, a lot of that complaining comes from a position of wanting to go back to the old days. If writers like myself stayed out of the whole “political” shtick, then the politics of it all will just magically go away and we can go back to the good old days. I know some will get offended for saying this, but I consider it a head in sand approach. People like myself aren’t introducing politics to the world of technology, the world of politics is introducing itself to the world of technology. That’s the reality whether you like it or not.
Yes, I can cut out politics from my coverage, but doing so would be an exercise in putting on the blinders. As a result, I would be doing a disservice to all involved including myself. First and foremost, I’m a journalist. As a result, I listen not just to my audience, but also the rest of the world. If I plug my fingers into my ears to certain things like politics, I wouldn’t be doing my job. I’m just the messenger of what I know and understand.
If there is a contingent of people who want to just shut out politics while still trying to learn about digital rights and technology, hey, I say, knock yourself out. Just know that I’ve seen it time and time again that this attitude, sooner or later, bites people like that in the butt. By that point, it’s too late.
I’m not going to say I’m necessarily happy about the situation. I’m not. Who wants to sit here and talk about existential threats about the country they live in? It’s stressful at a bare minimum. Still, in my position, focusing on the trade war garbage and the political environment is the logical place to focus on. Much like what Masnick alluded to, it has a knock-on effect on the world of digital rights and technology. Whether anyone likes it or not, it’s preemptive foresight in action.
