How exciting!

The denizens of an online forum I occasionally browse are up in arms about a years-old story that proves the government is out to get them. It is proof of dictatorship or worse in the making. Yes. I was horrified, too.

The Canadian Press story details the federal government's plan to provide information to people on social networks, starting with the seal hunt, one of the more divisive Canadian issues. (Or "polarizing", as the Canadian Press puts it. Ha ha! Nothing like an Arctic pun to brighten a story about death, sluggish economies and government surveillance!)

According to the story, trained federal employees are "alerted" to "questionable online comments" and then respond by providing links to "information the government considers more accurate".

This is actually a huge relief. All this time, I had assumed that the flame wars befouling our national news sites were driven at least in part by people on the payroll. (I hadn't figured out whose payroll -- I'd gotten as far as "wealthy donors" -- but I'm always at work when the flame wars start, and I certainly don't have time to participate in them because I'm, uhhhh, working. But I suppose slobbering Internet trolls might have bosses who are less interested in production than mine is.)

I guess this means we can assume that when Margaret Wente publishes a ridiculously offensive column in the Paper of Record comparing the prime minister to Kim Jong Il, the responses are heartfelt and offered without compensation. Responses like "In other words: 2 ACADEMICS AND A MUSICIAN DON'T LIKE HARPER, BUT POLLS SHOW THAT CANADIANS DO. So, the DICTATORSHIP IS OF THE ACADEMIC KIND? What happens when 'Canadians' disagree with the smug, self-righteous people?" reflect the honest opinions and free will of Canadians who are clinging to their sanity and choose to post comments.

I have to say that Wente's column comes close to pushing me over the edge, too. You might not like the prime minister or his tactics, but comparing his Conservatives to the North Korean government is a quick and easy way to lose all credibility.

In any case, I don't actually have a problem with federal staff providing links to information if it seems people are being misinformed or need more detail to make up their minds about matters of public policy. I don't see how this is much different than providing information in person at meetings or placing written information in public areas.

But isn't it exciting to think that you're so important, you're being monitored by the federal government?