I know that people like to hate on social media, and for good reason. But remember when it was encouraged that people look to multiple sources in order to find the truth somewhere in the middle? Yes you can still do that without social media but ...

Social media is a multi-source aggregator and then some.

I know there have been charges of social media creating echo chambers. But consider who made those charges to begin with. Typically traditional media.

And people who don't take conscious active measures to expose themselves to a broad point of view are just going to stick to their comfortable world-affirming sources anyway like they did before social media.

Something to consider is that when virtually every single person now carries around a video camera with them 24/7, with the ability to instantly upload footage to a potentially unlimited audience ... what use is there for traditional journalists in the majority of cases?

We still desperately need investigative journalism that uncovers events not widely exposed. But when there's a car accident, a fire, a weather alert? Why rely on your local NBC or Fox news outlet? What's the benefit to getting information plus spin when you can just get the raw first-hand footage from the people who were there? And not only do you get it without bias, you get it faster.

The bill is not about social media, but the fundamental sharing of information on the internet. Google searches are affected as well. As are aggregators like Reddit (and HN). And literally everywhere else that can display a link in text form. The only criteria (for now) is the company's revenue.

In what way is a zombie organization owned by an American private equity firm a local news source to Canadians?

I'm not clear on what you're referring to. What's the organization and what's the relevance of them being local news?

Are you referring to Post Media?

Yes.