Over the past year, Digital Public Square has been bringing Canadians together to hold dialogues on Israel-Palestine and challenge assumptions about Palestinian and Jewish Canadians. In collaboration with C-Space Group and Khouri Conversations, we convened a series of in-person dialogue sessions where Palestinian and Jewish Canadians came together to discuss how they have been affected by the post-October 7 environment, share their lived experiences, and hear from voices they are not normally exposed to.

The impacts of these dialogues were significant. Across sessions, participants moved from mistrust towards cautious reciprocity, responding to the emotions they heard rather than the motives they feared. Over time, a sense of camaraderie began to form despite enduring disagreements — demonstrating what it can look like for Palestinians and Jews to meet in Canada, remain present with one another, and work toward understanding.

Dialogue sessions can be transformative, but are difficult to scale. They require experienced mediators and small groups of dedicated participants willing to meet multiple times over several months. Moreover, not everyone is comfortable participating in these types of activities. Following the success of our dialogue series, we asked ourselves: how can we scale the impacts of dialogue to reach more Canadians across the country?

Voices – bringing the dialogue experience online

In response to this challenge, we developed Voices, a prototype designed to translate the experience of dialogue sessions into a short online interaction. We wanted to test a model for delivering the experience of dialogue in a brief, private, self-guided online experience.

Voices features four “profiles” of Canadians with different backgrounds and views on Israel-Palestine, each based on real participants from our in-person dialogue sessions. Users can engage with these profiles by selecting the one they are most interested in exploring, selecting question prompts, and responding to the perspectives they share. While our offline dialogue sessions focused on Palestinian and Jewish Canadians, we developed Voices to engage all Canadians interested in exploring how communities have been affected by Israel-Palestine and the polarization surrounding it.

We designed Voices to incorporate the principles of contact theory – the idea that interactions between members of different groups reduces prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination. Research has found that contact interventions can reduce conflict and intolerance between groups when they are structured under particular conditions.

When properly facilitated, contact interventions provide an opportunity for members of different groups to learn about the other, correct assumptions and misperceptions, and find common ground. Voices applies the principles of contact theory in a short digital experience where users can hear from diverse experiences and backgrounds, build empathy for those with different viewpoints, and explore polarizing issues in a safe, non-threatening, private environment.

Confronting polarization and intolerance at scale

Over 1,000 people engaged with the Voices pilot – and the initial results were promising. After using the platform, 47% said they gained an appreciation for a new perspective on Israel-Palestine different from their own, and 61% said they were interested in hearing more about perspectives and reflections on this issue from other Canadians. Further, 63 users volunteered to lend their voice to the discussion and share their own perspectives to create profiles for future versions of Voices.

These early results show the potential of Voices to build empathy for people whose views may be different than their own and encourage respectful conversations on contentious issues. Some participants also shared reflections about polarization surrounding Israel-Palestine after completing Voices:

“...people are hard to hate close up. We are all humans at the end of the day and some of the hate we see is not indicative of how most people feel.”

“The issue appears more polarized when looking at it from a broader scale, but it seems less polarized when taking into account individual perspectives.”

“People who are more involved in this crisis are not actually so different from me. Maybe there [isn’t] as much hopelessness for people as [I] thought. People [aren’t] filled with hate and for each other as [I] thought.”

“I live in rural Quebec and it’s not something we really talk about. I will try to understand it better I think.”

“...I would love to be a part of this kind of discussion if I knew that I [wouldn’t] be faced with negative consequences.”

These testimonials point to the importance of humanizing contentious issues to encourage empathy and reflection. Amid social media environments that reward conflict and division, Voices offers an alternative mode of engagement.

Digital Public Square is committed to scaling and refining Voices, building on what’s already working to reach more Canadians and deepen its impact. We see this model of structured digital dialogue as a powerful tool not just for bridging divides around Israel-Palestine, but for confronting polarization wherever it takes root in Canadian public life.

Interested in seeing it for yourself? Access Voices here.

Read more about our dialogue series here.

If you have any feedback on Voices, please send it to hello@digitalpublicsquare.org

On April 21, 2026, Digital Public Square’s CEO, Shlomit Broder, testified to the Standing Committee on Procedures and House Affairs on the current state of civic resilience in Canada. The following is a transcript of Shlomit’s testimony.

My name is Shlomit Broder and I am the CEO of Digital Public Square, a Canadian not-for-profit. Throughout the last decade, we have worked to bolster civic resilience in Canada and abroad by creating digital spaces that allow for greater participation, encourage critical thinking and invite more voices to be shared and heard in a productive and respectful manner.

Today, I will speak to two areas: the state of polarization in Canada, and the role digital spaces can play in strengthening civic resilience.

Across the world, we are seeing deepening polarization, growing information manipulation threats, and declining trust in institutions. Canada is not immune to these challenges and I believe it is a critical moment to take a thoughtful and proactive approach to safeguarding and strengthening our civic resilience.

Our nationally representative surveys show that Canadians perceive the country to be far more polarized than it actually is. Many believe that those with opposing political views are more extreme than they truly are, and underestimate how much common ground exists in our shared priorities.

In our July 2025 survey, 30% of Canadians said the country is highly polarized, and 62% stated that they are concerned the political left and political right can’t speak to each other about political and social issues. Yet when we look at how Canadians actually identify politically, the picture is quite different. Most Canadians are ideologically centrist. Within our survey, 66% of Canadians placed themselves in the three middle pillars on a 7-point scale between political left and political right, and only a small minority identified at the ideological extremes.

This gap between perception and reality matters. Canadians who perceive high levels of polarization tend to have lower trust in institutions, are less satisfied with democracy, and are more likely to feel the country is heading in the wrong direction. Our research also shows that as individuals identify more strongly with the political left or right, they tend to view their own group increasingly positively and the opposing group increasingly negatively. At the extremes, they question the other side’s morality.

Disagreement itself is not the problem, nor are strong political viewpoints. We invite differences of opinion in this country. The risk arises when difference turns into division and people begin to see those on the other side of an issue not simply as wrong, but as illegitimate or even dangerous.

What is driving polarization?

Politicians and political parties were the most cited cause of polarization by all Canadians. Those on the right were more likely than other Canadians to point to the political system and the country’s diverse makeup as additional causes of polarization. Those on the left were more likely than other Canadians to cite social media platforms and online influencers as causes.

Polarization is not a new phenomenon, yet Canadians perceive it and experience it to be increasing. Within this context we must acknowledge the role of social media platforms that are designed to amplify the most extreme and emotionally charged content. They often expose users to the worst representations of opposing views, distorting our perception of the public square and reinforcing an “us versus them” dynamic.

What do I propose we do?

I propose that we make Canada’s civic resilience a national priority, strengthening civic engagement, rebuilding trust, and fostering greater social cohesion. Achieving this requires a deliberate, non-partisan framework that brings together government, civil society, researchers, and the private sector. Important efforts are already underway across the country and have been for years. The opportunity now is to better align them and invest in sustained, long-term initiatives so that, collectively, they deliver a more meaningful and measurable impact for Canadians.

With respect to digital spaces, where much of my work is focused, we should not limit ourselves to reducing online harms. We should also seize the opportunity to actively use these spaces to engage Canadians and strengthen civic resilience. Our work has shown that when people are encouraged to engage thoughtfully with complex and often contentious issues in a respectful, judgment-free digital environment, they become more resilient to polarizing narratives. When individuals feel that their concerns are heard and taken seriously, they are more open to nuanced information and more willing to engage across differences.

Importantly, these kinds of digital initiatives allow us to reach Canadians who may not participate in more traditional forms of civic engagement, broadening both access and impact.

Polarization degrades the quality of Canadian democracy. When society is polarized, we become distrustful of one another, lose faith in democratic and social institutions, and face growing extremist movements.

As part of our ongoing work to build resilience to polarization in Canada, Digital Public Square launched Canada is Talking.

This campaign series engaged Canadians nationwide who feel alienated or disconnected from the country’s democracy. The campaign presents interactive content about Canadian democracy, invites users to share their perspectives on pressing issues, and allows them to compare their views with those of other Canadians.

We created three versions of Canada is Talking: a pre-2025 federal election campaign, a post-election campaign, and a polarization campaign. Through these campaigns, we heard from Canadians about why many are cynical about politics and democracy, what their fears and anxieties are, and how they want to see the country change.

Pre-election campaign: building trust in democracy

This campaign aimed to strengthen confidence in the reliability and integrity of Canada’s electoral system in the run-up to the 2025 federal election. We were particularly interested in engaging users who were sceptical about the fairness of elections in Canada or who did not see value in voting.

Our research into political discourse on social media revealed widespread cynicism surrounding the electoral process. We also sought to provide civic education to strengthen resilience to possible foreign information manipulation and interference campaigns, particularly those that seek to depress voter turnout.

This version of Canada is Talking featured two content modules.

• Why Should I Vote? presented information about the value of voting and political participation to counter feelings of apathy and disconnection.

• Can I Trust the Results? allowed users to explore how Canada’s electoral system and institutions work to combat misinformation about vote rigging and foreign interference.

Over three weeks leading up to the election, more than 1,200 Canadians completed at least one module. Prior to engaging with the platform, 22% of users indicated that they would likely not trust the outcome of the federal election and 20% indicated that they were not planning to vote.

After completing a module, 60% of users indicated that they were more likely to trust the outcome of the federal election and 66% indicated they were more likely to vote. These results suggest that Canada is Talking provides an effective model for engaging politically alienated Canadians.

Post-election campaign: exploring political participation

This version of Canada is Talking sought to assess Canadians’ views on the election process and raise awareness of how they can continue to participate in Canadian democracy between elections. Launched after the 2025 federal election, this campaign allowed us to learn about how Canadians felt about the election, its results, and its implications for polarization in Canada.

The campaign asked Canadians about the post-election environment, including what they thought about polarization, hope for the country’s future, and how they plan on staying involved in politics in between elections. A total of 2,730 Canadians shared their views.

Among them, 56% said they felt Canadians were more polarized after the elections and 65% said they felt pessimistic about the country’s future. The majority of users (57%) disagreed that if they are unhappy with the status quo, the only thing they can do is wait until the next election. The most popular ways people thought of getting involved were staying informed (69%) and engaging MPs (27%).

The results from this campaign suggested that, in the post-election environment, many Canadians perceived the country to be divided and felt anxious about the future. This demonstrates a need to continue to engage Canadians on democracy and polarization beyond the election period.

Polarization campaign: restoring social cohesion

Feedback from the post-election campaign led us to develop a third campaign focused on addressing polarization and divisions between Canadians. This campaign gauged how users perceive polarization in Canada and corrected misperceptions about polarization by highlighting that Canadians have more in common with each other than most people think.

While relevant for all Canadians, we were especially interested in reaching those who felt socially alienated, disconnected from their communities, or highly polarized. Over 7,600 Canadians engaged with this version of Canada is Talking.

Before engaging with the platform’s content, 39% of users said that they believed that Canadians on the right and the left are very different from each other. By the end of the experience, this figure decreased to 21%. Among those who initially felt the left and right were very different, 53% shifted their opinion to varying degrees after engaging with the platform.

We also shared this campaign with a group of Canadians in a focus group setting to gather qualitative feedback. Participants who reported feeling socially alienated were the most likely to find the campaign engaging, suggesting that it was effective in appealing to our target audience. Participants enjoyed the campaign’s interactivity and graphics, as well as use of public opinion data.

One young adult who perceived a high level of national division in Canada said, “The app let me check my bias and gain a more accurate picture of political opinions in Canada.” Another socially alienated participant said “It’s encouraging to see that most people are not as extreme as some of the voices that mostly reflect that political ideology.”

Creating space for reflection

Canada is Talking showed us that many Canadians who feel alienated from or distrustful of democracy appreciate opportunities to engage with tools that allow judgment-free reflection. When people’s concerns and anxieties are taken seriously, they may become more open to engaging with nuanced information about political and social issues.

Campaigns such as these are important for reaching Canadians who may not be interested in traditional outreach activities. By encouraging thoughtful engagement with important but contentious issues, we can strengthen Canadians’ resilience to extreme and polarizing narratives.

Try Canada is Talking here. Send us your feedback at hello@digitalpublicsquare.org

By Dr. Jeffrey Wilkinson, Raja Khouri, and Soleida Perez

This article is an excerpt from a report titled Palestinian and Jewish Canadians in Transformational Conversations: Hope for a Sunrise We Might Never See. Read the full report here.

Over three months in late 2025, Khouri Conversations, in collaboration with Digital Public Square, convened a small group of Palestinian and Jewish Canadians to meet regularly in Toronto for what we called “Transformational Conversations”. In a post–October 7 atmosphere marked by fear, polarization, and growing distance between communities, this group chose to do something counter-cultural: to sit together, listen, and stay in it.

This report invites you into that space. Our goal is not to claim success or resolution, but to show how, session by session, both cohorts moved: first into discomfort, then into recognition, and slowly toward a fragile, shared sense of responsibility.

The overarching goal of this exercise was to build emotionally-centred communities as a vehicle

for creating transformational conversations aimed at decreasing polarization.

The objectives were to:

1. Build compassionate conversations centred on common values instead of political opinions and tribal affiliations.

2. Replace the binaries of identities (Jewish, Palestinian) and political views (pro-Israel, pro-Palestine) with a shared identity of common humanity (create a community based on shared values).

3. Overcome polarization and binarism by building capacity to listen across differences.

4. Reclaim community narratives from political agendas to human relationships (empower individuals to build their own narrative separate from the dominant voices in their communities).

5. Enable individuals to overcome the fear of rejection from their tribal affiliations by building a stronger affiliation with the community of shared values.

What we learned about Palestinian experiences

Across the three months, the Palestinian participants carried with them an unmistakable emotional weight, one that often entered the room before they spoke. It showed up as exhaustion, vigilance, and a kind of grief shaped by decades of erasure. Many spoke about the “banning of history,” describing how Palestinian stories before October 7 rarely appeared in public discourse: stories of displacement, military occupation, everyday loss, and generational harm. When they did appear, the stories arrived stripped of context or surrounded by suspicion.

Several people said in different ways that they were used to explaining themselves, used to meeting doubt or defensiveness before they were met with care. Phrases like “desire for justice has led to hopelessness” and “why do I keep seeking justice from people who don’t see us as people?” captured the emotional core of this experience. These were not political positions. They came from deep emotional memory, inherited across generations.

A pattern emerged: Palestinian participants were often asked, in their lives outside the room, to perform empathy, condemnation, and offer clarity for the comfort of others. They described feeling pushed to denounce Hamas instantly or risk being seen as threatening, dangerous, or complicit. For many, this narrowing of what they were allowed to feel created profound loneliness. They spoke about losing belonging in Canada during a period of rising anti-Palestinian racism and surveillance, and about the pain of being reduced to violence rather than seen as whole human beings with complex histories.

Even so, they continued to show up, not just physically but emotionally. Their willingness to speak about displacement, generational grief, and the vulnerability behind anger created space for Jewish participants to hear something they had not been able to hear elsewhere. And in turn, they also listened. The work was not symmetrical, but it was reciprocal.

What we learned about Jewish experiences

Jewish participants walked into the room carrying a different, but equally heavy, emotional history. For many, October 7 reopened fears rooted in older family stories, memories of antisemitism, hiding, persecution, and the constant precariousness that Jewish families have carried across continents and generations. Some spoke openly about feeling “on edge” since the attacks, or about watching global antisemitism rise in ways that felt familiar and terrifying.

At times, they struggled with the collapsing of identities they saw in public conversations, the difficulty of separating critique of Israel from attacks on Jewish people themselves. Several described being treated as representatives of a government and other civic organizations whose actions they did not control nor support. Participants spoke about how easily nuance disappears when Jews are spoken about as one undifferentiated group, with little room for the diversity of experience and opinion within their community.

There was also a grief that surprised even some of the Jewish participants themselves. They spoke about family members afraid to wear Star of David necklaces in public, or how fear had settled “in the body,” not just in the mind. When Palestinian participants spoke about the “banning of history,” Jewish participants recognized a parallel: the way antisemitism, too, carries a long memory that shapes how danger is perceived, even far from the region.

What became most striking was how much the Jewish cohort wanted to be understood through the vulnerability they felt and not through the lens of power or privilege. They allowed others to see their fear as real and legitimate, not as political positioning. Descriptions such as “fearful,” and “aware that intolerance is on the rise in general” became part of the shared story in the room, a story that Palestinian participants began to understand more fully as weeks went on.

Moving towards recognition

The core movement over the months was not toward agreement and never needed to be. What shifted was that the two histories, the two emotional worlds, finally had room to sit beside each other without competing for moral space. The work became less about persuasion and more about recognition.

An important arc emerged: from position, to emotion, to meaning.

At first, participants spoke from positions of historical community narratives. As trust grew, the conversation shifted those positions to emotions: fear, shame, helplessness, rage, longing, exhaustion, numbness, love, and hope. When people stayed with those emotions long enough to recognize them in the other, something deeper became visible: the meaning underneath the fear, the meaning underneath the grief. This is where people began to understand one another.

Language fatigue played a surprising role. After weeks of trying to negotiate charged words like “resistance,” “genocide,” “Zionism,” “occupation,” and “apartheid,” people began to talk less about the words themselves and more about what those words meant in real terms. Conversations shifted from debating definitions to describing experiences and recognizing them in the other. This was the beginning of a shared emotional literacy.

Across sessions, mistrust slowly softened into cautious reciprocity. Participants started responding to the emotions they heard, rather than to the motives they feared. They noticed, became curious, asked questions of each other. They paused together. They held silence together. They walked together after sessions and exchanged books. They moved, slowly and tentatively, from fear-based assumptions toward human-based understanding.

From the outside, this may look simple. Inside the room, it was profound.

What began to form was a great sense of camaraderie despite enduring disagreements. Not a merging of political histories – those remain distinct and must remain distinct – but a shared story of what it feels like for Palestinians and Jews to meet in Toronto in 2025, and to remain present with one another, with everything they carry. It is not a political narrative, but a human one: a story about what it takes, psychologically and emotionally, to remain in the room with someone whose history is so entangled with your own pain.

This article is an excerpt from a report titled Palestinian and Jewish Canadians in Transformational Conversations: Hope for a Sunrise We Might Never See. Read the full report here.

Share

About Khouri Conversations

Khouri Conversations (with its sister organization, Conversations Without Walls) works with institutions to break down barriers to understanding between groups, and foster welcoming spaces that hold multiple truths and binary beliefs in tension. We focus on groups who struggle with the Israel-Palestine discourse to create pathways towards a deeper understanding of the complex histories, traumas and narratives. We offer listening circles aimed at healing and recovery; conflict prevention workshops that move groups from combative positions towards constructive engagement; and group presentations that seek empathy, understanding, and a re-humanizing of “the other.”

By Jillian LeBlanc, Founder Jillian LeBlanc Consulting

Executive summary

Preventing gender-based violence (GBV) in Ontario cannot rely on identifying “bad actors” alone, but requires early intervention—particularly with boys and young men—to provide the skills required to become effective bystanders. Digital Public Square, with support from the Government of Ontario, conducted a mixed-methods study to better understand how masculinity shapes bystander action and inform the development of an educational digital intervention on the subject. The findings from this research show that dominant masculine norms often create pressure and uncertainty rather than confidence, leaving many boys and men wanting to intervene but unsure how to do so safely or effectively. The evidence points to a clear gap between intentions and actions and highlights the need for early, gender-transformative, skills-based interventions that prioritize safety, reflect diverse realities, and equip users with practical tools to become active allies in preventing GBV within their communities.

Background

Since the reckoning of the #MeToo movement, which brought a major spotlight on the pervasiveness of gender-based violence (GBV) over a decade ago, we are still continuously seeing headlines of high-profile offenders engaging in gender-motivated, violent behaviour. Sexual violence is “the only violent crime in Canada not on a decline” with “87% of victims/survivors [knowing] their assailant.”1 These statistics demonstrate that GBV is not just perpetrated by “bad guys” in dark alleys. These “bad guys” are people we work with, our friends, and who we call family. This reality is not meant to scare people, but to highlight the need to be engaged in GBV prevention starting at an early age.

But how do we really prevent GBV from happening? Do we blame all men as potential perpetrators or adjacent to perpetrators? No. While there can be justified anger at perpetrators of this violence, positioning all men as the problem will not help solve GBV. The solution starts by focusing our attention on the culture that has allowed GBV to permeate: a culture where femininity is seen as weakness, men are seen as the normative gender, and silence is valued over taking a stand. One of the starting points for dismantling the system that props up GBV is treating bystander intervention of GBV like a skill that needs to be learned.

The University of Worcester describes bystander intervention as “noticing a problematic situation and making the decision to get involved.” This “noticing” is the first step of an intervention. From there, a bystander will assess the situation and decide whether they will engage in it (active bystander) or not engage in it (passive bystander).2 There are many factors that go into deciding whether or not to become an active or passive bystander, such as the actors involved, socialization, prior trauma, group dynamics, and physical fear, among others. Taking the “passive” approach over the “active” approach can sometimes be the best choice for a bystander and the actors in a given situation. However, it is critical that bystanders know how to identify a situation that requires intervening and understand what type of bystander intervention is most suitable for the incident in question. Learning effective bystander intervention, like learning any skill, needs to be informed by theory and data, and requires practice to master. Again, like most skills, the earlier in life you start learning it, the easier and more reflexive it becomes to use over time.

This is why Digital Public Square (DPS), with support from the Government of Ontario, developed Lean Forward, a new digital platform to provide boys and young men with contextually relevant and data-informed bystander intervention training. This digital experience allows boys and young men to explore active bystandership in a simulated practical environment, where users are free to make and learn from mistakes, and demystify the repercussions of a situation not ending how they would hope.

DPS designed Lean Forward based on findings from a mixed methods research project that sought to unpack how boys and young men, especially Gen Alpha, experience masculinity, GBV, and bystandership. Understanding the experiences of boys and young men and their needs will allow government, civil society, healthcare providers, and other advocates to fight back against GBV and promote healthy masculinity.

Building on existing research, focusing on regionality

The key question shaping our research was “how do boys’ experience of masculinity prevent or enable them to intervene when they witness harm?”

To answer this question, DPS used a mixed-methods approach to examine the central themes of masculinity and bystander intervention readiness from multiple perspectives.

The first step was a deep dive into the existing research via a literature review. DPS reviewed more than 30 sources, including peer reviewed academic papers, bystander intervention training materials, and social media campaigns. This helped us map out what research already exists about the relationships between masculine norms, bystander roles, early socialization, and digital behaviours. This activity allowed us to design a research plan that addressed gaps in the literature, such as the lack of Canada- and Ontario-specific use cases as well as data on teen boys within a secondary school context.

The research showed that traditional masculinity rooted in toughness, dominance, and emotional restraint is treated as a precarious status that must be continuously proven.3 Essentialist narratives suggesting men are “naturally aggressive” risk reinforcing harmful norms when unchallenged.4 Studies on bystander behaviour highlight the strong influence of social context, including diffusion of responsibility, which emerges early in childhood, and distinctions between passive bystanders who freeze and active bystanders who intervene or seek help.5 Research into digital behaviours shows that youth spend extensive time online and are shaped by those environments, and will respond favourably to digital micro-learning interventions on challenging topics.6 Across the research conducted, evidence confirms that peer norms significantly shape men’s willingness to intervene when witnessing gender-based violence or harms.7 Further, gender-transformative approaches consistently outperform gender-neutral programs—especially when they offer concrete, accessible skills using models such as the 4 D’s and the DESC framework.8

DPS wanted to ensure that the data it was using to inform the development of our skills tool was regionally relevant and tied to the right age group. These two data pieces were a gap that DPS identified through the literature review: there was a lack of Canada- and Ontario-specific data, and much of the research focused on young children or older adults, not on teens.

Next, DPS surveyed 503 men across Ontario in August 2025 to better understand how they think about gender identity, the expectations they feel, how confident they are in different settings, and where they turn for information. The survey also highlighted how masculine norms shift across generations, helping us contextualize the experiences of Gen Alpha boys today.

The survey findings showed variation in how participants described their identities as men. Some participants expressed a straightforward understanding of their gender identity, while others were defensive in tone. Overall, the responses showed that men have a strong understanding of their own gender shaped by their age, ethnicity, sexuality, regionality, religion, and other factors. Some answers signaled the validity of other genders through the understanding of their own masculinity, while some reinforced the gender binary by ‘othering’ other genders to strengthen the claim of their own.

Most respondents agreed that masculinity shapes how and when they intervene, yet many hesitated to do so due to uncertainty. These respondents said they were unsure whether a situation was serious enough to intervene, whether it was their place to do so, or how others might react. Learning preferences leaned strongly toward independent, online formats, highlighting the importance of accessible digital intervention tools. However, when looking for information on these topics, respondents pointed to a strong tendency to engage in person with friends and family.

Sample responses on gender identity

Sample responses on understanding masculinities connection to bystander intervention

Sample responses on bystander invention awareness

Finally, DPS crafted semi-structured focus groups with boys under 18 to dive even deeper into these questions. Through five focus groups held in both rural and urban communities, these sessions offered rich, honest reflections on how boys define masculinity, the pressures they feel from family and peers, what holds them back from intervening, and how they understand harm online and offline. They also shared what kinds of learning formats feel accessible and whether app-based tools could genuinely support them in real moments of uncertainty.

Across the focus groups, boys described masculinity as a confusing and highly policed set of expectations with contradictory rules about being confident but not “cocky” and strong rather than “soft”, which aligns with existing feminist scholarship on masculinity as a strict and socially enforced status. Although boys overwhelmingly want to step in when they see harm, fear and uncertainty often stop them. Boys worry about becoming the next target of an attack, escalating the situation, appearing weak, or misjudging whether something is serious, and many feel guilty afterward for not intervening. Their behaviours and comfort levels shift across contexts, including rural vs. urban environments, family and cultural expectations, peer groups, and online spaces, demonstrating that masculinity is deeply situational rather than static. Across all groups, boys emphasized that learning must feel real and relevant: they respond to honest, small-scale examples delivered through platforms they already use, and they reject forced slang, stereotypes, overly dramatic scenarios, and content designed to comfort adults rather than reflect their realities.

Sample responses on perspectives of masculinity

Sample responses on gendered expectations

Sample responses on bystander intervention

Sample responses on learning preferences

Using this mixed methods research approach allowed us to build a more holistic understanding of how masculinity influences bystander behaviour and what skills are needed to participate in GBV prevention. The findings directly informed the development of an evidence-based digital skills tool designed to promote positive bystander intervention suited to the context of boys and young men in Ontario.

Summary of key findings

Literature review

Across the literature, masculinity consistently emerges as a source of gender stress for boys and men rather than stability. Dominant masculine norms—particularly those emphasizing toughness, dominance, emotional control, and anti-femininity—are linked to lower rates of male bystander intervention. Masculinity is framed not as a fixed identity, but as a precarious social status that must be constantly performed and defended, increasing men’s perceived social and physical risk when intervening. The evidence also shows that bystander behaviour is shaped early, through socialization, diffusion of responsibility, and exposure to everyday microaggressions. Importantly, gender-transformative approaches are shown to be more effective than gender-neutral ones, particularly when they address underlying norms, teach concrete intervention skills, and leverage peer influence within the digital spaces youth already occupy.

Quantitative survey

The survey data reinforce that men’s identities are not monolithic, but shaped by age, context, and social positioning. While many respondents provided minimal identity descriptions or dismissive identity descriptions altogether, others provided inclusive understandings of gender, situating themselves as allies across the gender spectrum despite their self-identification with masculinity. Across the sample, men somewhat agreed that masculine expectations shape how they behave as bystanders, yet many were uncertain about when or how to intervene, whether it was their place to act, and how others would respond. Confidence was highest in in-person settings and lowest online, and there was no shared understanding of what constitutes “active bystander” behaviour. Learning preferences leaned strongly toward private, online formats, pointing to both discomfort with public engagement and a clear opportunity for self-directed digital intervention tools.

Qualitative focus groups

Boys described masculinity as confusing, contradictory, and closely monitored, with pressure to perform confidence and toughness while suppressing emotion. Despite a strong desire to help others and “be good people,” fear of social fallout, escalation, or misreading situations often led to freezing and, later, guilt. Identity and behaviour shifted across contexts (home, school, sports, rural and urban communities), highlighting the situational nature of masculinity and bystandership. Boys were also highly attuned to gender double standards. Across groups, they were clear that effective learning materials should feel authentic, feature realistic scenarios, use straightforward language, and have content embedded in platforms they already use, rather than containing preachy, stereotyped, or adult-filtered messaging.

Cross-cutting themes

Taken together, our research shows that men and boys want to intervene, but existing masculine norms create pressure without providing skills, clarity, or protection. Fear of social consequences, uncertainty about responsibility, and lack of practical skills limit action across contexts. Across all methods, the evidence underscores the need for gender-transformative, skills-based interventions that are context-sensitive, digitally embedded, and designed to build confidence without shame.

How our research can strengthen youth GBV interventions

DPS’s research offers a clear message for allies working to prevent GBV: Gen Alpha boys are not disengaged, resistant, or unaware. They are paying attention. They care about harm. They want to be good people. What they are missing is not values, but guidance, skills, and confidence to act effectively without putting themselves at risk. For those currently engaged in anti-GBV work, this requires a shift away from framing boys as problems to be managed toward recognizing them as capable participants in prevention when given the right tools. DPS urges its allies who are already committed to this work to engage with the following recommendations and take seriously the information provided by boys and men about their own identities in order to chart a path forward that is responsive to their needs.

1. Take masculinity seriously, without demonizing it.
   Across methods, masculinity emerged as confusing, contradictory, and closely policed. Boys experience constant pressure to perform strength, confidence, and emotional control, while knowing that missteps can carry social costs. Prevention efforts that ignore masculinity, or treat it only as harmful, fail to engage boys where they actually are.

Proposed action: Name the pressure boys feel and work with them to build healthier, strength-based alternatives that align care, responsibility, and courage with masculinity rather than positioning intervention as a threat to identity.

2. Stop relying on awareness alone and start teaching skills.
   Boys overwhelmingly want to intervene when they see harm but fear, uncertainty, and lack of clarity often stop them. Many freeze in the moment and feel guilt afterward. This gap between intention and action cannot be closed through messaging or moral appeals alone. Bystander intervention must be treated as a skill that can be learned, practiced, and adapted to context.

Proposed action: Prioritize micro-interventions—small, realistic actions such as checking in, redirecting, offering peer support, or delegating to adults—rather than heroic or high-risk responses that are unrealistic for everyday situations.

3. Safety must be centred, not treated as an afterthought.
   Fear of escalation, social backlash, or becoming the next target is real and rational. Boys repeatedly emphasized concern about making things worse or being judged as “soft.” Allies should explicitly validate these fears and design prevention efforts that prioritize self-protection alongside harm reduction.

Proposed action: Teach boys how to assess risk and choose safer options. Emphasize that knowing when not to intervene directly is essential; it is not a failure of courage, but a responsible form of allyship.

4. Prevention must reflect diverse and situated realities.
   There is no single way boys experience masculinity or bystander responsibility. Context matters: rural versus urban settings, family expectations, cultural norms, peer groups, sports environments, and online spaces all shape how boys show up and what feels possible.

Proposed action: Resist one-size-fits-all narratives and instead support multiple pathways to intervention that recognize different levels of readiness, confidence, and risk.

5. Meet boys where they already are, online and offline.
   Boys consistently reported turning first to friends and family for guidance, and preferring to learn privately, online, and at their own pace. Confidence is highest in in-person contexts and lowest online, even though much harm occurs digitally. This points to a clear opportunity: digitally embedded tools that build confidence and skills in low-risk ways.

Proposed action: Leverage platforms boys already use (Snapchat, Instagram, TikTok, Discord), use short and engaging formats that feel like conversations, not lessons at school.

Gen Alpha boys do not need to be convinced that GBV is wrong. The hard news for anti-GBV practitioners is that we may need to change the way we support learning around GBV to focus more on guidance for acting in moments that feel uncertain, risky, or socially complicated. By continuing to invest in authenticity, safety, skills-building, and context-sensitive digital tools, boys can become not just future allies in GBV prevention, but take action now to interrupt the cycle of harm in their communities.

About the author

Jillian LeBlanc is an internationally recognized intersectional feminist, policy leader, and decolonial legal scholar based in Paris, France. She is the Founder and Lead Consultant of Jillian LeBlanc Consulting, where she advises governments, multilateral institutions, and civil society organizations on gender-transformative policy, intersectional evaluation, and rights-based governance.

Read the full report here.

In July 2025, Digital Public Square ran a survey to measure the state of polarization in Canada. The survey offers insight into how Canadians perceive polarization in Canada, what they think are the causes of polarization, and how they perceive people who agree and disagree with their political positions. The survey seeks to measure both ideological and affective polarization. Put simply, ideological polarization is when society becomes divided in political beliefs. Affective polarization is when people strongly identify with their own partisan group and social distance between partisan groups grows. When affective polarization is high, opposing political groups view their in-group increasingly positively and their out-group increasingly negatively, creating an “us versus them” dynamic.

Subscribe now

Key findings from the survey include:

• Canadians generally identify as ideologically centrist. Overall, 40% of Canadians identified as right-leaning and 30% as left-leaning, with the remaining 30% occupying the centre. On a 7-point scale, 66% of Canadians placed themselves in the three centrist positions. Extreme views were not widespread, with only 7% identifying on the far right and 5% on the far left.

• Canadians perceive a relatively high level of division in the country. On a scale of zero (not at all polarized) to 10 (extremely polarized), the average score was 6.5. Three in 10 (30%) said they think Canada is highly polarized (top three options) and only 4% said they think it is not very polarized (bottom three options).

• Most Canadians believe that polarization is worsening. Over half (55%) said they think polarization is getting worse, while only 16% said they think it’s getting better. This sentiment was particularly strong among those who already perceive a high degree of polarization, with 71% of them feeling things are getting worse.

• The more right or left a person identifies, the more positively they view their own group and the more negatively they view the opposing group. On a 10-point scale where zero is very negative and 10 is very positive, the far right rated the political right 8.8 and the left 2.9 (a 5.9-point difference). Similarly, the far left rated the left 8.3 and the right 1.8, a difference of 6.5 points.

• The right and the left see positive traits in their in-groups and negative traits in their out-groups. In particular, individuals on the far right and far left reported extremely negative views of their ideological opponents. These views were often rooted in alarming perceptions, such as the other side being immoral or having the wrong priorities, which likely makes it easier for them to dismiss opposing arguments entirely.

The survey results suggest that affective polarization in Canada is high and at risk of intensifying. In comparison, ideological polarization does not appear as high. The survey principally measured ideology through self-identification on the political spectrum rather than applied to particular real-world positions. Further research is needed to illuminate the scope and drivers of affective and ideological polarization in Canada, with a goal to develop solutions to polarization before it becomes a crisis.

Read the full report here.

This report was updated on April 30, 2026 to make the following changes:

• Page 8 and page 30: The previous version incorrectly stated that 7% of Canadians place themselves on the far left and 5% place themselves on the far right. The correct percentages are 5% on the far left and 7% on the far right.

• Page 19: Added additional data about perceptions of the left and of the right.

• Page 22: Added additional data about negative perceptions of the left.

Share Digital Public Square’s Newsletter

In October 2025, Digital Public Square held the Polarization in the Public Square Conference, an opportunity for civil society, academia, and government to come together to explore solutions to the growing problem of political and social polarization in Canada.

Polarization poses an urgent threat to the health of our democracy and the social fabric of our communities. Canadians are becoming more divided in how we perceive our social and political identities, leading to a rise in extreme ideologies and growing distrust in our democracy.

Disagreement, of course, is a fundamental feature of our political system. It’s how positions are formed, voters make decisions, and policies get made. There are also many good reasons for people to hold positions that don’t fall in the middle.

Increasingly, however, we are seeing those we disagree with not just as people with different views—or even political rivals—but as enemies who pose a threat to our way of life. This environment can breed illiberal political movements, political and ideological violence, and social isolation.

When trust breaks down—trust in our institutions, in our media, and in one another—our collective ability to solve complex, real-world problems falters. Polarization inhibits effective governance, stalls critical action, and makes it impossible to address pressing economic and social inequalities with unity and expertise. It damages the very communities we aim to serve by replacing constructive dialogue with antagonism, intolerance, and, in some cases, avoidance.

This phenomenon is accelerated and amplified by our digital environment. Algorithmic echo chambers, mis- and disinformation, and social media outrage cycles have created segmented realities. As Canadians, we are increasingly occupying different informational worlds, and this divide has tangible, negative consequences.

Digital Public Square recently ran a survey to measure the state of polarization in Canada. The results were eye opening. We found that affective polarization—the dislike of those with opposing views—is high.

Our survey found that the more left or right one identifies, the more negatively they see the other side, and the more positively they see themselves. They see the other side as immoral, intolerant, and extreme, and see the opposite traits in themselves. This is a well-researched phenomenon that has occurred in various contexts and, unfortunately, Canadians are following this path.

It’s not hard to see how polarization can corrode our democracy over time. Recognizing this problem, we organized the Polarization in the Public Square Conference to bring together researchers, practitioners, and government representatives to develop solutions to polarization before it’s too late.

We wanted to bring attention to the issue of polarization and explore how it intersects with societal challenges such as extremism, illiberalism, and intolerance. Our speakers came from a diverse range of personal and professional backgrounds. What they had in common was a commitment to standing up to polarization in our society—whether in our universities, places of worship, or online spaces.

Throughout the conference, we heard how polarization prevents social and political progress in a range of contexts and on numerous issues. From stalling truth and reconciliation about Canada’s history with Indigenous peoples, to further fracturing the country’s media and information landscape, to dividing communities based on their views on Israel-Gaza, polarization impacts the most urgent issues Canada is facing.

While polarization can create vicious cycles that degrade our social and political fabric, we also heard about innovative strategies to counteract these forces. Although speakers at the Polarization in the Public Square Conference came from a variety of different backgrounds, common themes on tackling polarization emerged.

One of these key themes was the importance of listening. If we create space for genuine listening, we can test our assumptions about other people and learn where they are coming from. Those who share their perspectives can move beyond reflexive debates, gain greater reflection on why they hold the views they hold, and learn about others’ perspectives and narratives. Over time, conversations like these can break down barriers between those with seemingly opposing views.

Another key theme was the importance of finding values and identities that cut across groups and bridge differences. Often, groups think they are more different from one another than they really are in reality. When we put what we hold in common at the forefront—whether it’s being neighbours in a local community or sharing fandom in a sports team or supporting a bigger principle—these values and identities can transcend other differences or disagreements.

Finally, another theme was the role of structural factors in driving polarization. Unaccountable social media companies ignite polarization as part of their business models. Economic precarity and unresponsive governance erode trust in our institutions and create demand for polarizing movements and narratives. There is a proliferation of organized movements seeking to radicalize people online.

Structural challenges like these are the biggest roadblocks to addressing polarization. In controlled settings, facilitated listening and dialogue sessions can break down walls and depolarize participants. Institutions like civil society organizations, universities, and workplaces can emphasize shared identities to bring communities together. However, to confront polarization at the societal level, these efforts need to be scaled up to reach Canadians across the country, while governments need to bake in responses to polarization in their policies and legislation.

These barriers make standing up to polarization a formidable challenge. But we know a lot about what works—and what doesn’t work—in depolarizing our communities. The next step is to invest in solutions and do the work to bring Canadians across the country together.

In close collaboration with partners, Digital Public Square is testing approaches—both online and offline—for reducing polarization in Canada. Findings and learnings from these experiments will be available in Spring 2026. Follow Digital Public Square to stay up to date with our work on countering polarization in Canada.

Read more about the Polarization in the Public Square Conference here: https://digitalpublicsquare.org/insights/polarization-in-the-public-square

At Digital Public Square, we’ve spent years exploring how technology can help people engage constructively with social issues. While researching the polarization surrounding Israel and Palestine in Canada, we saw a need for a new kind of digital space. We asked: could a generative AI chatbot, when designed with safety and privacy as leading principles, create a space for thoughtful reflection?

This was the idea behind Facilitator — an AI chatbot designed by Digital Public Square to put user safety at the forefront and create a private space for engagement on polarizing issues. Facilitator is based on a simple inversion of the chatbot premise: it asks the questions, and the person engaging with it answers.

Subscribe now

How it works

When you go to the Facilitator website, you can enter a conversation where the chatbot starts by introducing the topic and asking you a question (see below). This is a pre-written opening prompt designed to create a reliable starting point for users and for evaluating the tool.

The conversation continues with this flipped paradigm: the chatbot asks the questions and the user responds. Unlike typical AI chatbots, Facilitator avoids providing facts or opinions, and does not try to make any arguments. Instead, it asks, inviting reflection rather than reaction.

Messages between the user and chatbot are not recorded by Digital Public Square at any time, unless the user chooses to submit it to us for analysis. Digital Public Square applies this consent-driven approach to data collection to encourage safe exploration of issues that can be difficult to talk about.

Our approach to safety

From day one, our primary design goal with Facilitator was safety. Our hypothesis was that by creating a safe and private space for thoughtful discourse, we could encourage people to reflect on polarizing issues. We were especially interested in reaching people who may not normally be interested in having conversations about polarizing issues in their day-to-day lives. We needed to ensure that the experience felt safe to test that hypothesis, and also to ensure that the interaction did not exacerbate any feelings of polarization.

Our first major design choice was the inversion of the question-asking role. Since LLMs can produce statements that are false or harmful, we wanted to avoid conversations where users would ask the chatbot to verify information, provide guidance, or otherwise influence the user’s thinking. The choice to have the chatbot ask the questions was easy to implement and test, and also helped the experience encourage critical thinking and reflection.

Our second major choice was to build Facilitator to give users as much control over their data as possible. We want the user to feel like their conversation is private until they choose otherwise. The important caveat is that Facilitator uses Anthropic’s Claude API, so messages are handled and stored by Anthropic. This approach was a necessary compromise. Since the data shared with Anthropic contains no user information other than what they type (and we encourage the user not to share private information in their messages), their messages should not be personally identifiable. We chose Anthropic’s API because they ensure that messages processed by the API will be deleted after 30 days and will not be used for model training.

To validate that the chatbot behaved as desired, our team tested the chatbot by trying to have adverse conversations. This “red team” testing approach helped us build our confidence that it behaved according to our principles. We were able to greatly reduce the likelihood that it would act outside of the desired boundaries (asking only questions and avoiding polarizing statements). We found that this questions-only approach was quite resilient to adverse user behaviours, though it is still possible to “jailbreak” the model and get it to behave outside of the desired boundaries with well-designed approaches (which are highly unlikely to occur with regular use).

We did find that some issues remained. In particular, the chatbot can be sycophantic in ways that made users feel like they were not having a meaningful conversation. The chatbot also sometimes focused more on the user’s knowledge (facts, research, evidence) instead of their feelings and values, which could feel offputting for people who didn’t feel like they were experts in the issues they were discussing.

What we learned

From December 2024 to July 2025, we collected 70 full transcripts from users we invited to test Facilitator — 51 paid testers, 6 who joined through online ads, and 13 from our working group on inter-community polarization. We also received 40 post-conversation surveys, and the results were positive.

From our surveyed users:

• 95% reported a positive experience

• 77% felt more comfortable discussing the topic with the chatbot than with people they know

• 50% said they felt less polarized or politically frustrated afterward

• 55% said they would use the tool again to discuss Israel-Palestine

• 80% said they would use similar chatbots to explore other difficult topics

From the full set of transcripts, we found that most people engaged earnestly. We were encouraged by many thoughtful conversations in which people expressed their concerns, hopes, fears, and ideas. A few people treated it playfully, or even trollishly, responding with memes and non-sequitors while the chatbot patiently kept asking questions to try and steer things back on track. Others were quieter, with mostly brief noncommittal messages and occasional thoughtful reflections. Even those who identified strongly with one “side” tended to express at least some empathy and nuance, acknowledging complexity rather than taking absolutist positions.

Try it yourself

You can engage with Facilitator today at facilitator.digitalpublicsquare.org.

We welcome you to converse, reflect, and explore the tool. Try to learn from the conversation, or try to break it! Either way, we hope you will share your transcript with us if you are comfortable doing so. We hope to continue to learn how people can benefit from the flexibility and social safety of the chatbot user experience, and where it can go wrong.

Each new attempt to harness technology to foster reflection instead of reaction gives us hope that technology can bring us together instead of driving us apart.

Subscribe now

Transnational repression—when governments reach beyond their borders to coerce, intimidate, or harm critics and members of their diasporas—poses urgent risks to democracy and social cohesion in Canada. The Final Report of Canada’s Public Inquiry into Foreign Interference called transnational repression “a genuine scourge” and said that “the government must take this seriously and consider ways to address it.” It found that China “is the most active perpetrator of foreign interference targeting Canada’s democratic institutions.”

The Canadian government is advancing several important initiatives to counter foreign interference and transnational repression, such as establishing a Foreign Influence Transparency Registry, publicly reporting transnational repression campaigns, and engaging affected diaspora communities. Less commonly discussed, however, is the importance of addressing anti-Asian racism in building community trust and buy-in to more effectively confront foreign interference and transnational repression.

In June 2024, Digital Public Square ran a survey to better understand attitudes towards foreign interference and transnational repression in Canada. In designing this project, we were aware of the risk that increasing awareness of the Chinese government’s interference and transnational repression campaigns could unintentionally result in increased anti-Chinese and anti-Asian sentiment. As such, we sought to measure public opinion towards anti-Asian racism in Canada and see if there was a relationship with awareness of foreign interference and transnational repression.

Overall, 44% of survey respondents agreed that anti-Asian racism is a “significant problem” in Canada. This figure was higher among those who identified as ethnically Chinese (59%) and ethnically Chinese from Hong Kong (55%). Further, 55% of respondents agreed that they worry that reports into Chinese foreign interference could lead to increased anti-Asian racism. This was also higher among respondents who identified as ethnically Chinese (68%) and ethnically Chinese from Hong Kong (66%).

That approximately two-thirds of Canadians who identify as ethnically Chinese or ethnically Chinese from Hong Kong worry that reports of foreign interference from China could lead to an increase in anti-Asian racism curtails our collective ability to respond to these threats. The majority of Canadians (62%) said foreign interference is a serious issue, but this was lower among respondents identifying as ethnically Chinese (53%) and ethnically Chinese from Hong Kong (52%).

These survey results show two key trends. First, a strong majority of Canadians who identify as ethnically Chinese or ethnically Chinese from Hong Kong see a direct connection between reports of Chinese foreign interference and anti-Asian racism. Second, these communities are less likely to view foreign interference in Canada as a serious problem.

While further research is needed to dissect these relationships, the data suggests that ethnically Chinese communities may see foreign interference as a less pressing issue because of how they may be negatively impacted by responses to it. In other words, despite being disproportionately impacted by Chinese foreign interference and transnational repression, community buy-in to respond to these threats is inhibited—in part because they have to contend with anti-Asian racism.

There is good reason for diaspora communities to feel this way. Singling out a particular country as a malign threat actor risks inviting backlash and discrimination towards people who have a connection with that country. For example, Chinese Canadians experienced an increase in discrimination during the COVID-19 pandemic after some labeled it the “China virus” or a Chinese bioweapon.

In light of these dynamics, Digital Public Square designed an educational awareness-raising campaign about foreign interference and transnational repression from China that sought to increase awareness of the issue while also increasing empathy for affected communities. As part of our awareness-raising strategy, we sought to emphasize that diaspora communities are the groups most likely to be victims of foreign interference campaigns—rather than agents of such campaigns.

Working in collaboration with diaspora communities, we hypothesized that by raising awareness of how foreign interference impacts diasporas, we could increase knowledge of the issue while avoiding backlash. We then tested the effectiveness of our content in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) with three groups: one that engaged with our Dangers Without Borders narrative platform, one that engaged with educational tip sheets about the issue, and a control group that did not engage with any content.

The RCT showed that those who engaged with Dangers Without Borders scored the highest on awareness indicators, including perceived severity of the issue, knowledge accuracy, and attitudinal shifts. Those who engaged with Dangers Without Borders reported warmer feelings towards Chinese Canadians than those who only read the tip sheets, and were the most likely to view Chinese Canadians as targets of the Chinese government.

The experiment showed that a visually engaging storytelling approach that emphasizes impacts on victims and affected communities is an effective way to raise awareness about foreign interference and transnational repression while avoiding backlash. Describing how these threats impact real people and communities instead of speaking to impersonal concepts like national security helps make complex issues resonate with the general public.

Designing outreach and awareness-raising campaigns that are cognizant of anti-Asian sentiment is just a small part of addressing the problem. At a minimum, educational campaigns about foreign interference and transnational repression need to avoid creating backlash against the communities already at greatest risk. Ideally, they should actively fight back against anti-Asian racism.

Deepening engagement with diaspora communities and funding broader efforts to address anti-Asian racism throughout society are some ways that the Canadian government and civil society can strengthen social cohesion and improve our collective ability to respond to foreign interference and transnational repression.

If you are interested in learning more about our Foreign Interference Resilience and Education Initiative, please reach out to hello@digitalpublicsquare.org

Digital Public Square and Code for Canada recently hosted Hack the Divide, a virtual hackathon where innovators from across Canada developed innovative solutions to the growing challenge of social and political polarization. From September 26 to 28, coders, designers, storytellers, and systems thinkers teamed up to create digital tools and interventions to help Canadians navigate disagreements, stay curious, and foster respectful dialogue.

Subscribe now

Organized in response to the increasing polarization seen in Canada and online, Hack the Divide challenged participants to find solutions to complex challenges such as echo chambers, perceived polarization, media outrage cycles, and the link between identity and ideology. The event moved beyond simply identifying these problems to prototyping tangible solutions.

“People are feeling like our technology does more to set us against each other than to bring us together,” said Ben Windeler, Digital Strategy Lead at Digital Public Square. “We launched Hack the Divide to create a space for people to explore how technology can build bridges instead of barriers.”

Dorothy Eng, CEO at Code for Canada, said, “We know there are people nationwide who want to use their technology skills for the public good. This hackathon is an exciting opportunity to bring together civic technology volunteers from across the country to tackle an important and timely challenge.”

Over the course of the hackathon, participants created seven projects, attended four polarization workshops, and sent 1,540 messages over Slack. Two teams won overall at Hack the Divide.

Team Daiya, consisting of Hope Akello, Sahar Khyabani, and Jerikka S, explored a creative AI-powered speaker tool that would act as in-person referee for challenging group conversations.

Team Connecto, consisting of Anil Kumar, Tom, Miriam Hotter, and Jérôme Mignault, built a prototype for a digital conversation facilitator that would provide prompts for seeking common ground and give practical tips for managing conflicts.

These two projects showed remarkable creativity, implementation of best-practices, and storytelling ability. They addressed different dimensions of polarization, with Daiya focusing on the human experience of engaging with a digital tool in-person and Connecto focusing on online informational content and implementation.

The projects were judged by a panel of polarization and civic technology leaders, including:

• Ahmed Khalifa: Ahmed loves building—code and bridges. As the Principal Architect of the API gateway and marketplace at Telus, Ahmed has a depth of experience building big software in big businesses. He also builds software for non-profits and charities to share his love of coding with the social impact world.

• Charles Finley: Charles is a seasoned leader in strategic transformation and operations. His work as a founder, board member, and advisor across many organizations brings together system-level thinking with inclusive community building. As a trailblazer in civic technology and social innovation, he has a great depth of experience in starting, building, and achieving scalable impact.

• Emily Traynor Mayrand: Emily is an expert researcher and knowledge mobilizer on violent extremism and terrorism. Her work in academia, in civil society with the Violence Prevention Network, and in the public service with the Government of Canada gives her a nuanced perspective of the forces leading to polarization as well as the downstream impacts that polarization can have on individuals and communities.

Hack the Divide saw Canadians come together to move from frustration to action, creating meaningful interventions that promote curiosity and connection. We will feature some more of the creative solutions that emerged from Hack the Divide in the weeks ahead.

By Inta Plostins

Generative artificial intelligence (genAI) technology allows people to produce content cheaply and rapidly. While it can be used for many productive purposes, genAI can also increase the spread of harmful content like genAI-driven misinformation (known as “AI hallucinations”) and other content intentionally designed to deceive or manipulate. The proliferation of genAI—with all its risks and rewards—comes at a time when young Canadians are spending increasing time on social media and are thus more likely to encounter online mis- and disinformation. Compared to older generations, young Canadians trust genAI tools more—but have less confidence in democracy.

Is there a relationship between young Canadians’ trust in genAI technology, declining trust in democratic institutions, and the spread of genAI-powered mis/disinformation? As genAI becomes increasingly commonplace, understanding these relationships are important for depolarizing the genAI debate while simultaneously building and reinforcing trust in democracy.

Subscribe now

Trust in genAI is highest among young Canadians

The use of genAI tools in Canada is rapidly growing. Over 66 percent of Canadian adults report using genAI at least once for either leisure, work, or study, according to a 2025 survey by the Social Media Lab at Toronto Metropolitan University. While research is mixed about whether genAI usage rates among Canadian youth are higher than those of other age groups, Gen Z and Millennial Canadians reported higher levels of familiarity with AI (83 percent and 71 percent, respectively) compared to Gen Xers (61 percent) and Baby Boomers (38 percent) in a 2025 Ipsos survey. Similarly, younger Canadians who use AI use it consistently. Research by KPMG in 2024 found that over 60 percent of Canadian students used genAI several times per week.

High familiarity with and frequent usage of genAI among Canadian youth appear to correlate with a higher level of trust in genAI. In a 2025 Abacus Data survey, 57 percent of Canadians aged 18-29 reported completely or mostly trusting AI to be used safely and responsibly in society, compared to just 21 percent of respondents aged 60 and above.

Young Canadians are lukewarm about democracy

These demographics flip when looking at levels of trust in democracy and Canadian democratic institutions. Just 67 percent of Canadians aged 16-29 agreed with the statement “democracy may have problems, but it is better than any other form of government” in a 2024 survey by the Dais—the lowest percentage of any age group surveyed. Similarly, a survey conducted by DPS in July 2025 showed that only 48 percent of respondents aged 18-29 agreed with the statement “Democracy is preferable to any other form of government,” compared to 80 percent of respondents aged 55 and above.

This distrust also extends to Canadian democratic institutions specifically. Respondents in the youngest age group (16-29) of the Dais survey were the least likely to agree with the statement “in Canadian elections, votes are counted correctly,” while just 51 percent of respondents aged 18-29 agreed with the statement “I trust the results of the recent Canadian federal election” (versus 74 percent of respondents aged 55+).

Broad concern about the impacts of genAI on democracy

Canadians are also concerned about the effects of genAI on Canadian democracy, with 67 percent of respondents to the Social Media Lab survey worrying about its potential impact on future elections. Additional research shows that Canadians are right to be concerned about the manipulation of Canada’s information ecosystem through genAI tools. In another survey by the Dais in 2025, 67 percent of Canadian respondents reported seeing deepfakes or synthetic media online (which are often AI-generated) at least a few times a year. Deepfakes about celebrities were the most common type that Canadians encountered, closely followed by deepfakes of Canadian politicians.

Is there a relationship between trust in genAI and distrust in democracy?

Despite the explosion of research on genAI usage in Canada as well as the public’s eroding trust in Canadian democratic institutions, much of it does not focus specifically on young Canadians—the group most likely to trust genAI. Existing research shows that there appears to be a correlation between trust in genAI and distrust in democracy, and that genAI-driven misinformation is proliferating across the internet. Whether there is a direct relationship between these factors is unclear.

At a moment of profound change in how information is created and consumed in the digital age, it is critical to untangle the relationship between genAI-driven mis/disinformation, (dis)trust in genAI, and (dis)trust in Canadian institutions among Gen Z and millennial Canadians. Understanding how these factors impact one another will allow policymakers and civil society develop evidence-based strategies to strengthen young Canadians’ engagement with democratic institutions to reinforce and reinvigorate Canadian democracy.

Subscribe now

Transnational repression—when governments reach beyond their borders to coerce, intimidate, or harm critics and members of their diasporas—is a growing problem in Canada. As a multicultural country that is among the world’s most popular destinations for immigration and education, Canada is home to many diasporas that are at risk of being targeted by foreign governments.

Subscribe now

Canada’s multicultural society and values make it well-suited to becoming a leader in confronting transnational repression. The Canadian government has taken steps to assume this mantle as president of the G7, as the group produced its first ever joint statement on transnational repression at the leaders’ summit that was held in Kananaskis, Alberta this June.

Digital Public Square recently concluded a project that sought to increase Canada’s resilience to transnational repression. As part of this project, DPS and DisinfoWatch consulted 25 activists from Chinese, Hong Kong, Taiwanese, Tibetan, and Uyghur diaspora communities to better understand how they have been impacted by transnational repression and what Canada can do to protect them.

Through these consultations, we identified three steps that governments and civil society in Canada can take to confront transnational repression.

1. Improve law enforcement reporting and communication

Through our consultations, we heard that victims of transnational repression often do not know whether they should contact local police, the RCMP, or CSIS to report an incident and receive law enforcement support. In some cases, victims have been told by local police to contact the RCMP and told by the RCMP to contact local police. After an incident is reported, there is often limited communication about the status of the case and if it is being pursued.

Specific training on transnational repression, increased linguistic and cultural support capacity, proactive communication, and a more clear and streamlined reporting process would improve victims’ confidence in law enforcement.

2. Offer broader social support to help rehabilitate victims

Victims of transnational repression often suffer mental health trauma and PTSD, or have had their reputations attacked by smear campaigns. Most government responses view transnational repression from a security or law enforcement lens, but victims would also benefit from broader social support.

Increasing victims’ access to mental health support, legal aid, settlement services, and community networks are some potential solutions. In addition to government initiatives, there are opportunities for civil society organizations to provide tailored support for victims of transnational repression in these areas.

3. Provide solutions for self-censorship

Fear of transnational repression leads many members of diasporas in Canada to avoid engaging with democracy and human rights issues. These activities can be as benign as expressing opinions on social media or attending in-person lectures and protests. As such, they do not engage in these activities to begin with, limiting their ability to exercise democratic rights and freedoms despite living in Canada.

To address this challenge, the Canadian government can make tailored outreach efforts to engage diaspora communities in democratic political processes. Universities can also develop accommodations for students who are uncomfortable speaking about sensitive political issues in classrooms to allow them to study and learn with greater security.

Recognizing the threat of transnational repression

Transnational repression is a pernicious challenge that cannot be fixed overnight. Responding to it requires a proactive and continual commitment that empowers Canadians to exercise their democratic rights and dissuades foreign governments from dangerous overreach. By recognizing the problem and exploring ways to confront it, Canadian governments and civil society can help build trust with targeted communities and co-create solutions.

For more information about Digital Public Square’s Foreign Interference Resilience & Education Initiative, visit our platform Dangers Without Borders.

For more findings from the community consultations, read our report PRC Foreign Interference and Transnational Repression in Canada: Insights from Vulnerable Diaspora Communities.

For information on steps to take to protect yourself from transnational repression, read our tip sheet Protecting Yourself & Your Community from Transnational Repression.

AImagine is a personality quiz that helps you explore how you imagine AI. Built in response to the Global Dialogues Challenge from The Collective Intelligence Project, the experience shows how your perspective compares to over 2,000 people from around the world.

It is essential that we can have more inclusive and meaningful conversations about AI. But, these conversations can be difficult. While the popularity of AI in research, technology, business, and policy has exploded, the term is notoriously slippery. “Artificial intelligence” can refer to everything from an algorithm that runs on a Game Boy to a language model that requires a warehouse of servers. Today, the focus is usually on generative technologies that we interact with through natural language.

Even when people share a basic understanding of AI technology, their different perspectives can create polarizing conversations. The social, environmental, and economic impacts and opportunities of AI have created rifts among both industry experts and the general public. AImagine’s questions help you explore your own perspectives, and presents a range of profiles so that you can think about those of others.

Take the quiz to discover your AImagine profile—and see how your perspective fits into the global dialogue. Or, read on to learn more about how we built the experience.

How we made AImagine

Analylzing the data

The Global Dialogues datasets include waves of questions asked to respondents around the world (a bit over 1,000 respondents per wave). Some questions are multiple choice while others are open text. Our analysis focused on multiple choice questions that were asked across the two most recent waves.

First, the responses were converted into numbers (for example, “Disagree” = 1, “Unsure” = 2, “Agree” = 3). This helped us compare the different responses to each other. Using these numeric representations of each respondent’s data, we used principle component analysis and K-means clustering algorithms to identify four groups of respondents that had similar answers. If you head to the profiles page of the quiz, these clusters roughly correspond to the Believer, Skeptic, Power-user, and Doomer profiles.

Developing the profiles

Examining the responses of these different clusters helped us identify our key AI characteristics:

• Beneficial: how much you believe that AI is harmful versus beneficial to society

• Effective: how much you believe that AI is productive versus error-prone

• Agentic: how much you believe that AI can think or act independently versus only with human control

Believers and Power-Users both saw AI as effective and beneficial for society, while Skeptics and Doomers saw AI as harmful. Believers and Power-Users were differentiated based on their attitudes towards AI agency. Believers trusted AIs to operate autonomously and viewed them more as intelligent entities while Power-Users preferred to stay in control. Skeptics and Doomers differed both in their perceptions of how effective and agentic AI is, with Doomers seeing it as much more powerful than Skeptics.

Designing the quiz

These characteristics were what we needed to develop our quiz design. We selected 10 questions that were most clearly associated with the present-day impacts of AI, the practicality of AI, and the agentic independence of AI. Each question was then scored according to how it reflected the characteristics, contributing to the respondents’ overall profile.

Finally, the existence of three characteristics and only four profiles meant we had other combinations to explore. We built out the four remaining profiles by examining responses of people who showed different characteristics—for example, the Hobbyist, who scores low on effective and agentic but high on beneficial.

Imagine on!

The result is AImagine—a quiz designed not just for individual reflection, but as a framework for conversations. People need common language to describe their nuanced perspectives in order to engage in meaningful dialogue.

When more people are involved in discussions about the role of AI in their lives, we unlock greater potential for impactful and responsible innovation. As AI becomes an inevitable part of our digital public square, it’s essential that diverse human perspectives are part of shaping its future.

Try AImagine for yourself—and consider sharing your profile to spark thoughtful conversations in your own community.

Subscribe now

Political interference from foreign governments was a major concern during this year’s Canadian federal election. Warnings about the threats of interference were issued by journalists, academics, and government bodies such as the Security and Intelligence Threats to Elections (SITE) task force. Alleged instances of covert foreign interference operations targeting diaspora communities were brought to light by CSIS and the Globe and Mail. The election itself was centred around which political leader was best positioned to respond to threats to Canadian sovereignty from US President Donald Trump.

Subscribe now

Concerns about foreign interference are warranted and should be taken seriously, especially during election periods. The threat of foreign interference in Canadian elections has a longstanding history. However, the actual impact of foreign interference on influencing opinions or affecting electoral outcomes is difficult to assess accurately. It can also be difficult to trace where interference operations come from. In the digital age, influence activities have become borderless, and can spread in spaces completely unrelated to the original target of the influence operation. So what do we know about foreign interference, and how did it affect Canada’s election?

What is foreign interference and foreign influence?

Foreign interference has been a major topic of concern globally since the Russian government attempted to influence the 2016 American presidential election—but what really counts as “foreign interference” or “foreign influence?”

According to the Canadian government, “foreign interference” refers to attempts by foreign actors to push their own strategic objectives “to the detriment of Canada’s national interests.” Interference can include attempts to control diaspora communities, spread harmful disinformation, and influence government officials. It includes “covert” or hidden methods to influence groups, such as social media manipulation or bot farms. “Foreign influence” is a broader term that includes covert methods as well as legitimate “overt” or transparent methods of advocating interests like diplomacy.

In Canada, the federal government recently concluded a public inquiry into foreign interference following reports that the Chinese government attempted to influence the 2019 and 2021 federal elections, among other incidents. The inquiry found that while foreign interference has been a longstanding issue in Canada, it is now easier than ever for foreign governments to spread propaganda and disinformation due to the pervasiveness of social media. As a result, more Canadians are paying attention to foreign interference—and rightfully so. Attempts at influencing or interfering in another country’s elections undermines that country’s democracy and sovereignty.

Foreign interference and influence in Canada’s federal election

This year’s Canadian federal election saw multiple alleged foreign interference incidents. SITE flagged an information operation on WeChat that aimed to influence Chinese Canadians’ perceptions of Prime Minister Mark Carney as a potential instance of “covert influence.” The Globe and Mail also reported that former Liberal MP Chandra Arya had been disqualified from running due to his relationship to the Indian government. Two MPs stepped down from their campaigns after they made comments effectively endorsing transnational repression strategies from India and China, respectively. Additionally, alleged interference in the 2022 Conservative leadership race by the Indian Government came to light. Trump’s annexation threats could be classified as an example of more “overt” influence over the election.

Discussions around foreign interference happened across all platforms during the election period, including both fringe and mainstream groups. Some more disenfranchised groups claimed that the election was rigged to favour the Liberal party, alleging that President Trump’s comments about having an easier time dealing with a Liberal leader were an “endorsement” of Prime Minister Mark Carney. These groups also questioned whether there was a deeper motive from President Trump, alleging the endorsement of the incumbent party will keep Canada’s economy weak and ensure that the country cannot compete with American energy exports. Other social media debates spurred by foreign interference incidents centred on Carney’s ties to China and Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre’s ties to India. More mainstream discourse was centered around the extent to which President Trump’s influence affected the outcome of this election, considering how Canadian patriotism has risen in the wake of tariffs and annexation threats.

The impacts of foreign interference and influence

States have sought to influence groups beyond their borders throughout history. “Influence” is not limited to mis- and disinformation—it also includes coercion through military and economic control, usually referred to as “hard power,” and persuasive rhetoric through cultural and diplomatic influence, usually referred to as “soft power.” The goal of influence has not changed; rather, the scale of influence operations has increased dramatically for relatively little cost through the use of online social media influence operations such as bot farms.

Despite the lengthy history, measuring the impacts of foreign interference in large-scale changing of opinions or beliefs is still in its infancy. While we have unprecedented ability to distribute information, the means to study influence operations online at scale can be difficult, especially as social media platforms like Meta and X remove access to their APIs. Additionally, much of the existing research has only been conducted on Facebook and X—a narrow scope in comparison to the broader information ecosystem, which also includes private group chats, shortform videos, and other social media and communication tools.

Further, both Facebook and X have undergone significant changes over the last few years that have had ripple effects on the information landscape. For example, Meta no longer allows news on any of its social platforms in Canada, and X’s demographic has changed significantly since Elon Musk took over in October 2022 (the effects of which are still under-researched). Many users have moved to video content on TikTok, Instagram, or YouTube, which changes how information is spread, and makes content more difficult to analyze.

The impact of foreign influence is more likely to be felt by diasporas or other communities with ethnic, cultural, or economic ties to the perpetrating state. These impacts can be felt directly through transnational repression—when a state harasses diasporas beyond its borders—or indirectly, as communities face increased intolerance or racism when bilateral ties between Canada and their countries of origin sour. For example, despite the inquiry into foreign interference’s findings that Chinese influence did not ultimately affect the results of the 2019 and 2021 elections, people of Chinese heritage in Canada have faced both increased transnational repression by China and increased anti-Asian racism.

Our research on the effects of transnational repression showed that diasporas have heightened feelings of insecurity when concerns about foreign interference are raised in the media, unless they have access to broader social support. It is thus key to support efforts to increase media literacy as well as efforts to increase tolerance towards marginalized groups in Canada and keep our society free, safe, and equal for all.

Strengthening resilience to foreign interference and influence

The impact of foreign interference on individual opinion and voter behaviours is difficult to measure. Nevertheless, the election showed how the presence of foreign interference alone can shape political discourse. Further, many Canadians feel the impact of foreign interference in the form of intolerance, racism, or transnational repression. These factors stoke societal fissures, divide communities, and lower trust in political institutions, thereby threatening Canada’s sovereignty.

Canadian citizens deserve to cast their votes without external forces attempting to influence their decisions. To protect these rights, we need to equip Canadians with the knowledge and resources to identify and report foreign interference in all forms. We must also push for better protections for victims of transnational repression and strengthen avenues to report foreign interference to make our democracy more resilient and protect our sovereignty.

To learn more about our work on foreign interference and transnational repression and its impacts on Canadians, or to share your experience, check out our website Dangers Without Borders.

Subscribe now

What’s the narrative?

“Poll workers are stealing the election.” These narratives allege that some election workers conspired to alter ballots and rig the vote in the recent Canadian federal election. They contend that Elections Canada—the non-partisan agency that runs federal elections—worked to ensure that the Liberal Party won the election. The narratives began during the advance voting period and have continued to spread in the aftermath of the election.

During the advance voting period, one prominent misinformation narrative contended that voting booths were supplied with pencils—rather than pens or markers—so that vote counters could erase and alter ballots. Promoters of this narrative often claimed that they always used pens or markers in previous elections, and that this was the first time they were given a pencil. In one video widely circulated on social media, a voter confronts an election worker to demand a pen instead of a pencil.

Elections Canada and media organizations fact checked the misinformation surrounding pencils and clarified that voters were welcome to bring their own pencils or pens. According to Canadian law, poll workers must provide pencils to voters; pencils are used because they do not dry up and do not risk ink blotting, which can spoil a ballot.

In the aftermath of the election, another viral video that reached millions of social media users purported to show Elections Canada workers “stealing” ballot boxes and loading them into their personal vehicles. This incident was debunked by Elections Canada and the Digital Forensic Research Lab.

Finally, recounts of tight races resulting in the Liberal Party winning additional seats after Election Day prompted conspiratorial discourse on some social media spaces. In particular, the Liberal Party winning the Terrebonne riding by a single vote—while a voter supporting the Bloc Quebecois was unable to cast her vote due to a mailing address error—prompted the proliferation of misinformation. In another case, over 800 special ballots in a BC riding were mistakenly kept at a returning officer’s office, which similarly spurred misinformation. Generally, misinformation surrounding these incidents stated that Elections Canada was interfering in the voting process to ensure the Liberal Party won the ridings.

Digital Public Square and Revontulet noted one case of a poll worker attempting to influence votes during the election. In this incident, Elections Canada removed a poll worker who was allegedly trying to convince voters to support the Conservative Party.

Who’s promoting the narrative?

According to our social media monitoring, the pencil misinformation narrative appears to have gained momentum after right-wing content creators posted shortform videos about it during the advance voting period. Users across different social media platforms engaged and amplified the narrative as they expressed anxieties that their support for the Conservative Party would be erased. The narrative gained enough traction that it reached more mainstream audiences, prompting media reporting on the issue.

In comparison, active engagement with the “stolen ballot box” appeared to be limited to more right-wing social media spaces. The ballot box narrative spread after a video about it was posted by a YouTube channel that creates right-wing news analysis videos, which often feature misleading or conspiratorial content about Canadian politics. It was shared by numerous influential social media accounts—both Canadian and international—with a track record of sharing misinformation, such as a widely followed Telegram channel that frequently posts misinformation about Canadian and international politics. While posts promoting this narrative prompted a level of outrage among audiences, it did not appear to “stick” or lead to repeated debate over time.

Similarly, the Terrebonne riding misinformation initially appeared to be limited to right-wing social media spaces (especially those found on X and Telegram). However, the Terrebonne election continues to be examined and discussed as part of the news cycle, which has led misinformation surrounding the event to continue to circulate and reach broader audiences, such as in comment sections of news articles.

Why’s it important?

Election denialism misinformation about poll workers stealing the election poses significant risks to Canadian democracy.

Canadians with low trust in government institutions may be particularly vulnerable to election denialism narratives. What most of these narratives have in common is the idea that the Liberal Party, as the incumbent government, has direct control over non-partisan agencies like Elections Canada and is willing to use them to achieve their objectives. This perspective reflects polarization and cynicism about democratic institutions.

Further, in a polarized political environment, supporters of parties that lose elections may be more likely to believe election denialism narratives. Aggrieved supporters of losing parties may believe that the election was stolen by their perceived enemies, and that they face an imminent threat of being silenced and marginalized.

Opportunistic actors on social media often try to take advantage of feelings of victimization to stoke outrage and indignation. By expressing a need for solidarity against an imminent threat, these actors can mobilize their audiences to further their following and influence.

The relative inability of election conspiracy and denialism narratives to enter mainstream discourse and lead to real-life actions suggests that Canadian society is not polarized enough for them to take hold. However, a recent survey by Leger found that 13 per cent of Canadians do not trust the election results “at all”, while just under two-thirds fully trust the results.

These survey results show that a small but significant segment of the population feel extreme distrust of the electoral system and Canadian democracy. They also demonstrate that overall confidence in Canada’s electoral system is soft, which suggests that Canadians could become more vulnerable to election denialism discourse if trust in institutions continues to erode.

A post-election fundraising email from the Conservative Party said that the Liberal Party was trying to “tip the scales” and win more seats. Political actors should avoid using language such as this as it risks mainstreaming election denialist misinformation.

Ensuring that election denialism does not grow in future elections requires investments in democracy and a commitment from all levels of government to build trust with Canadian citizens. Ensuring that the Terrebonne election process and result is communicated to the public with as much transparency as possible would be an effective place to start.

Digital Public Square does not include links to or screenshots of content promoting extremism, violence, and polarization so that it is not amplified.

Subscribe now

Canada’s federal election, which took place on April 28, was billed by many observers as “generational” for its uniquely high stakes. Voters were tasked with electing a government to respond to tariff and annexation threats from the US, and to address cost of living and housing crises that have left many Canadians anxious about the future.

The election results reflected the unusual circumstances, with the Liberals and Conservatives each winning over 40 per cent of the popular vote for the first time since 1930. Ultimately, Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Liberals won a minority government. Yet despite the urgency of the election and its polarized results, election day was for the most part free of the types of conspiracy theories, denialism, and violent rhetoric in mainstream online spaces that are increasingly common in democracies around the world.

This is not to say that these narratives have been entirely absent. Digital Public Square, in collaboration with Revontulet, has been monitoring online narratives promoting extremism, violence, and polarization throughout the election period. We have found no shortage of such narratives, which have ranged from secessionist support for becoming the 51st state of the US to conspiracies about Carney to rising Indophobia. Fake political content has also been abundant on social media, ranging from sensationalist articles about prominent political figures dying to imitation news sites promoting cryptocurrency scams.

Most—but not all—of these narratives appeared more prominently in far-right information spaces. For the most part, extreme and violent narratives did not infiltrate mainstream social media discussions.

Canadians should take the growing interest in these narratives seriously. Some suggest growing radicalization and conspiratorial thinking in small but vocal segments of the population. Others reflect an increasing sense of alienation, frustration, and powerlessness, particularly among young Canadians. Understanding and responding to the underlying grievances of Canadians who feel disillusioned with their prospects is fundamental to maintaining the health of our democracy.

Fortunately, mainstream discourse surrounding the election and on election day itself largely shied away from extremist and denialist conspiracies—something that Canadians should not take for granted. When polarization grows, the threat of real-life violence grows in parallel. We have seen this play out in other liberal democracies in recent years.

In 2024, the US Department of Homeland Security assessed that domestic extremists motivated by policy grievances posed the greatest threat to the safety of voters and poll workers. There were several violent incidents during that year’s presidential election, including multiple bomb threats to polling stations and a young Trump supporter in Florida who threatened pro-Democrat supporters with a machete. Four years earlier, the January 6 Capitol attack—which was spurred by election denialism—was connected to the deaths of seven people.

Violent incidents like these are not limited to the US. Following the UK’s 2024 general election, the country’s Electoral Commission found that online and offline harassment and abuse of electoral candidates and their families “put people off campaigning”. During the UK’s Brexit referendum campaign in 2016, a white supremacist murdered Labour MP Jo Cox.

In the Canadian election, Digital Public Square and Revontulet did not identify any violent confrontations at polling sites, which bodes well for the health of our democracy. Still, while the election process was successful, Canada is not immune to political violence. Two days before the election, NDP leader Jagmeet Singh revealed that the RCMP warned him that he faced a credible threat to his life in December 2023. At one advance polling station in Vaughan, Ontario, an Elections Canada employee was removed for allegedly trying to influence voters. Some Canadian politicians are even legitimizing and amplifying dangerous misinformation narratives themselves. The threat of electoral violence and extremism in Canada is real and growing.

To counter harmful misinformation and encourage young Canadians to reflect on our democracy, we built Canada Is Talking—a trivia and survey platform about voting and elections in Canada. After engaging with Canada Is Talking, 66 per cent of users reported that they were more likely to vote in the election, and 60 per cent said they were more likely to trust the results of the election. The success of this platform shows how consulting Canadians about their concerns with empathy can encourage openness to new information.

Ensuring that future elections are trusted and free of violent and extreme discourse requires continued investment in Canadian democracy. This includes engaging Canadians with empathy on the factors leading to their alienation and disillusionment, introducing online safety legislation, and building social cohesion between polarized communities.

Digital Public Square does not include links to or screenshots of content promoting extremism, violence, and polarization so that it is not amplified.

Today is election day in Canada.

To help Canadians reflect on our democracy, we created Canada Is Talking.

Canada Is Talking challenges your knowledge of how our democracy works and provides a space to share your views on voting and election results in Canada.

Are you still deciding whether you should vote or wondering if your vote counts? Play Canada Is Talking to explore some of these questions here: https://CanadaIsTalking.com

What’s the narrative?

“Indian immigrants are invading Canada.” This narrative alleges that Canada is being “overrun” by South Asian immigrants. Supporters of this narrative argue that jobs and housing are being taken by South Asian immigrants to the detriment of others, calling Canada the “New India” and “the new third world.” They also argue that Canada’s political system is displacing what they consider to be “real Canadians”.
This argument is based on the discriminatory premise that “real Canadians” are a distinct group that excludes South Asian immigrants. It may also reflect backlash to the growing participation of South Asian Canadians in political institutions.

Concerns around immigration, cost of living, the housing market, and job opportunities are some of the top issues in this election. Frustrations with these issues are contributing to rising anti-South Asian sentiment in Canada.
The favourability of Canada’s immigration policies has declined in recent years, with growing concerns from across the political spectrum around whether the system is being mismanaged. The number of international students and their possible strain on the job and housing markets has been a focal point of the debate. This has contributed to rising xenophobia towards South Asian immigrants, as India has historically been Canada’s top source for international students, and many South Asians of non-Indian descent are racialized as Indian.

Who’s promoting the narrative?

According to our ongoing monitoring of online discourse, the narrative about Indian immigrants “invading” Canada with calls for deportation mostly appears in far-right media spaces. However, anti-South Asian sentiments are common and mainstream on many social media platforms. Comment sections across the internet, such as on X, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, Reddit, and news articles, regularly hold anti-South Asian sentiments.

These sentiments permeate across communities, political identities, and topics of interest. For example, Reddit communities discussing jobs, politics, and neighbourhood matters all regularly host comments disparaging South Asian immigrants, claiming they are all Indian immigrants and saying that they are “dirty” or “have no place in Canada.” Some South Asian Canadians on Reddit have even warned others who are thinking of coming to Canada that they would not advise it due to their experiences with racism.

The main objective of the “invasion” narrative appears to be to capitalize on socioeconomic frustrations to encourage large-scale deportation efforts similar to those in the United States. They also seek to undermine the legitimacy of South Asian candidates running in the upcoming federal election. These attacks have been made against members from across the political spectrum, including the NDP, the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party, and the People’s Party.

Why’s it important?

Indophobia has been on the rise in online spaces, especially in Canada. A few factors may be contributing to this rise: concerns around housing and jobs, intra-community violence, and bilateral tensions with India.

First, the concern around housing and jobs may stem from concerns of over-immigration amidst a cost of living crisis. Indian immigrants, particularly students, have been the scapegoat for a weak labour market and high cost of living. However, recent studies have found that international students are not major contributors to housing market stress; rather, it’s a complex problem that has been steadily worsening for decades.

Second, anxieties around community safety have arisen as a result of intra-community tensions that have spilled over into violence, such as the incident between Hindu nationalists and pro-Khalistani Sikhs outside of a Brampton temple in 2024. While these tensions are not new, violence between these two communities is uncommon in Canada.

Third, bilateral relations between Canada and India have become strained. In the wake of the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar in 2023, then-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said there were “credible allegations” of Indian involvement in the act. This incident led to a steep degradation in the bilateral government relationship between Canada and India. The subsequent caps on foreign student visas and immigration soured relations even further. In February, Minister of Immigration Marc Miller made statements that universities are sourcing students from too narrow a range of countries, which has been spun to claim that Canadian universities are “bringing in too many Indian students.”

Each of these factors are complex issues that don't have easy answers; however, they are being simplified to justify Indophobia and scapegoating of South Asians. These factors collectively contribute to wariness, uncertainty, and animosity towards South Asian Canadians, and add to xenophobic discourse that has been legitimized since Trudeau’s Liberals announced plans to cut back on immigration numbers in August 2024 and caps on foreign student numbers in September 2024. Additionally, US President Donald Trump’s deportation policies and rhetoric risk exacerbating this sentiment in Canada. Canadians should be vigilant around narratives like these, as they serve to increase polarization between communities and undermine social cohesion.

Digital Public Square does not include links to or screenshots of content promoting extremism, violence, and polarization so that it is not amplified.

What’s the narrative?

“Carney’s election as Liberal leader was rigged.” This narrative falsely alleges that now-Prime Minister Mark Carney’s election as Liberal leader was illegitimate. Promoters of this narrative cast doubt on the Liberal Party’s election process to suggest that Carney was selected as leader by party elites or the Chinese government rather than in a vote by party members.

To justify these false claims, they question the Liberal Party’s relatively open membership requirements, and claim that “foreigners” or “foreign children”, rather than Canadians, voted for him. Specifically, promoters misrepresent the Liberal Party’s voting rules to suggest that anyone in the world as young as 14 could vote in the election. Some also cite information operations linked to the Chinese government or raise questions about the riding-level voting results as further evidence that Carney’s election was illegitimate.

Many critics have argued that the Liberal Party’s membership requirements are too relaxed and risk making the party vulnerable to foreign interference. For instance, the Chair of Canada’s National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP) has said that internal party elections are the most vulnerable part of Canada’s electoral system to foreign interference. Promoters of the rigged election narrative sometimes distort or cherry pick legitimate criticisms like these to delegitimize the entire election process.

Some promoters of the rigged election narrative also say that the Liberal Party “installed” Carney as Prime Minister undemocratically because he does not currently hold a seat in the House of Commons. By law, prime ministers do not need to hold a seat in parliament. However, according to Canadian political conventions, they will seek elected office in an election or byelection soon after assuming the position. Carney is running in Ottawa’s Nepean riding in the upcoming election.

Who’s promoting the narrative?

According to our ongoing monitoring of online discourse, this narrative is primarily being discussed by right-wing news websites, and right-wing opinion leaders and users on social media. We have identified it most commonly on X. The main objective of the narrative appears to be to erode trust in and support for Carney and the Liberal Party amid the election.

In social media discourse surrounding the narrative, we have observed users frequently refer to Carney as an “agent of China” or a “business partner” of Xi Jinping. They echo longstanding social media narratives surrounding the Liberal Party and former prime minister Justin Trudeau as being overly friendly with China.

Narratives about Carney being “installed” are not limited to allegations about Liberal Party machinations or the Chinese government. For example, we have observed a narrative on far-right Telegram channels alleging that Carney was “picked” by US President Donald Trump. This was largely in response to comments from Trump stating “I’d rather deal with a liberal than a conservative” on March 18, 2025 and that he had a productive call with Carney, on March 28, 2025.

Why’s it important?

Narratives that misrepresent legitimate political processes as elite conspiracies can negatively impact democratic institutions in multiple ways.

First, they undermine trust in democracy by making people feel that democracy is a facade and that their participation doesn’t matter. When people view the outcome of an election as predetermined, this can breed apathy and alienation in democracy, or, in extreme cases, radicalization.

Second, these narratives lay the groundwork for denialists to call election results illegitimate if their favoured party does not win. Besides casting doubt on Carney’s election as Liberal leader, the narrative sets the stage for questioning the legitimacy of the upcoming federal election results as a whole. The January 6 Capitol attack in the US following the 2020 presidential election is an example of how election denialism can lead to violence and extremism.

Third, unfounded or exaggerated accusations of foreign interference can lead to xenophobia and intolerance. Canada has faced real threats of foreign interference during this election cycle, including incidents involving the Chinese and Indian governments. Inaccurate and polarized discourse surrounding foreign interference, however, politicizes the challenge of foreign interference and makes responding to these incidents more difficult as a result.

Digital Public Square does not include links to or screenshots of content promoting extremism, violence, and polarization so that it is not amplified.

What’s the narrative?

“Canada should become the 51st state”. Conversation around this sentiment has been circulating steadily online amid repeated calls for the annexation of Canada by US President Donald Trump and his ally Elon Musk. In February, Musk claimed that Canada is “not a real country” after a petition circulated to revoke his Canadian citizenship status.

Through monitoring the online discourse around this narrative, we have observed some Canadian-identifying accounts promoting this narrative. Some Canadians who support the 51st state narrative suggest that their province—most commonly Alberta—should join the US, rather than Canada as a whole. This echoes secessionist narratives that have a longstanding history in Canada.

Who’s promoting the narrative?

“Canada should become the 51st state” is being promoted by disaffected Canadians in primarily right-wing information spaces. These include alternative media outlets, social media platforms, and supporter pages for some Conservative politicians. Supporters of the narrative tend to express disillusionment with the Canadian government, saying that they would rather be the 51st state than live under a government they label as “Liberal”, “Communist”, or “Marxist.” These supporters argue that the "Canadian dream” is no longer achievable and that they would have more economic opportunities and freedoms as part of the US.

Polls conducted by Angus Reid in January and March found that 90 percent of respondents would vote ‘no’ to Canada becoming part of the US. A minority of Canadians—one in 10—would support joining the US. While it may be small, this base of support should not be discounted, as this percentage has been consistent since the narrative gained traction in December 2024.

Financial precarity and disillusionment may be making the 51st state narrative attractive among this segment of Canadians. For instance, according to a January Ipsos poll, 43 percent of Canadians aged 18-34 said they would vote to join the US if they were offered full citizenship and conversion of financial assets to US dollars.

Why’s it important?

It’s tempting to conclude that the 51st state narrative is a product of foreign interference— CBC and The Globe and Mail both flagged foreign interference from the US as a potential threat to influence Canada’s upcoming federal election. While there is clear amplification from political actors in the US, some of the engagement with the 51st state narrative appears to be from within Canada. Based on our monitoring, this appears to stem from frustration and grievances about the incumbent Liberal government and the cost of living crisis.

Discourse around narratives like this can become charged with emotional language, creating polarizing online environments that can be vectors for misinformation and other harmful content such as harassment or violence. When these types of narratives proliferate, it can undermine social cohesion and trust in Canadian institutions. The possibility of influential political and media actors in the US promoting these narratives during Canada’s election period poses further risks, and requires that Canadians stay vigilant of misinformation and extreme narratives both online and offline.

Digital Public Square does not include links to or screenshots of content promoting extremism, violence, and polarization so that it is not amplified.