The Liberal government has come under intense scrutiny on social media after the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) said it would be moving to regulate podcast providers and streaming services. 

The contentious decision has drawn the ire of prominent figures, including Elon Musk, journalist Glenn Greenwald, and Chris Pavlovski, the CEO of Rumble.

Accusations of censorship were prompted when the CRTC issued a news release outlining its plans to expand its regulatory scope into the world of podcasts, social media services, and online streaming platforms. 

The central provision of this announcement requires “online streaming services that offer podcasts” to formally register with the government if they earn over $10 million annually, allowing for increased regulatory control.

Elon Musk, CEO of X and Tesla, expressed his strong disapproval of the move in a post on Sunday. 

“Trudeau is trying to crush free speech in Canada. Shameful,” Musk posted. 

Musk’s post has been seen by over 38 million people and has been liked over 305,000 times at the time of writing. 

The X CEO was responding to a post by journalist Glenn Greenwald who accused the Trudeau government of overseeing a repressive censorship regime. 

“The Canadian government, armed with one of the world’s most repressive online censorship schemes, announces that all “online streaming services that offer podcasts” must formally register with the government to permit regulatory controls,” posted Greenwald. 

Chris Pavlovski, CEO of the video streaming platform Rumble, also lamented the development. 

“Canada is no longer part of the free world. As a Canadian, I’ve never been more embarrassed than I have in the past few weeks,” posted Pavlovski. 

The CRTC’s initial step in regulating digital media will require podcast providers operating in Canada and earning over $10 million annually to formally register with the commission. 

While proponents argue that this move is aimed at ensuring a level playing field in the media, opponents claim it to be an infringement on free speech and an unnecessary intrusion into content creation.

Author