• C4H coordinates progressive creators to counter right-wing media dominance. We connect vetted creators with unions and movement organizations who need their messages to reach people corporate media won't.

    We're building infrastructure that doesn't exist yet—and we're not waiting for permission to start. The right spent decades coordinating creators, funding platforms, building distribution networks. We're starting now, in Canada, for progressive movements, with transparency.

    What do you actually do?

    Pay creators fairly to make content they believe in, on issues they choose, with their own voice. No scripts. No content control. Just coordination, resources, and community.

    What we're not: A marketing company. A lobby group. A political party. A pay-to-play influencer marketing initiative.

  • C4H is co-chaired by founders Samanta Krishnapillai (Group Project Initiatives) and Nora Loreto (Canadian Association of Labour Media).

    The structure: Joint initiative between Canadian Association of Labour Media (nonprofit, 250+ unions) and On Canada Project Inc. (woman-of-colour solo-entrepreneurship venture). Both pay taxes. Both operate transparently. Neither is funded by your tax dollars.

    Pilot means we're testing what works in real conditions. Learning from creators, not imposing on them. Iterating based on outcomes, not theory. Catching problems early, fixing them in community. You can't perfect organizing models before they exist. You build them, test them, improve them—together.

    Our structure reflects our strategy. C4H operates through a partnership between two independent organizations:

    Canadian Association of Labour Media (CALM): Registered nonprofit with 40+ year history. Cooperative of 250+ unions across Canada. Brings institutional credibility and labour movement roots.

    On Canada Project Inc / Group Project Initiatives: Woman-of-colour-owned social enterprise. Registered for-profit because social enterprises don't have better legal options in Canada. Structured outside the nonprofit industrial complex by design—bringing agility without the constraints that often reproduce the power dynamics we're disrupting.

    Both organizations pay taxes, maintain good legal standing, and operate transparently with partners.

    What this means: We're not a registered charity. We're not tax-deductible. We're not a public institution. We're movement infrastructure—funded by unions and progressive organizations, accountable to our partners and creators. C4H does not operate as a for-profit business; we effectively work as a nonprofit.

    This isn't a polished product. It's infrastructure under construction. Come help build it, or watch—but we're done waiting for the perfect conditions that never come. The pilot phase is about proving what works so well that coordinated creator campaigns become standard practice for democratic movements.

  • Decision-making during pilot phase:

    • Campaign development: Partners/Sponsors tell C4H leadership what they are working on.

    • C4H adapts the discourse for social media which might not be 100% in alignment with official messaging from Partners & Sponsors, while still supporting the same goal of public awareness.

    • Partner reviews and approves campaign brief, they are only permitted to check for any massive red flags around factual inaccuracies. They are not able to decide how creators choose to talk about the issues.

    • Creators review a set of briefs and select which campaigns resonate with them.

    • Creator autonomy: Creators have full control over how they interpret briefs—angle, format, tone, timing

      To be clear, creators are not required to participate in each campaign. It’s up to them to decide what works for them.

    The pilot structure is intentionally adaptive. We're testing what works in real conditions, learning from outcomes, and adjusting based on evidence.

    Decisions incorporate input from creators, partners, and the operational team to build infrastructure that actually serves progressive movements.

    This isn't top-down control—it's coordinated action with shared principles and distributed decision-making.

  • Stop feeding billionaire platforms, start building our own infrastructure

    Every dollar unions and progressive organizations spend on Facebook ads, Google campaigns, and traditional advertising enriches the very platforms that profit from disinformation and hate. That ad spend disappears into billionaire pockets while your message gets buried by algorithms designed to maximize engagement, not truth.

    C4H offers a different model: reallocate those ad budgets to pay creators directly. You're not just buying impressions—you're investing in necessary civic infrastructure and building messaging that authentically lands with people.

    This isn't about finding new money—it's about spending existing money strategically

    As we state clearly on our website: this is a reallocation of money issue, not a lack of money issue.

    We're helping organizers find the money already in their budgets—the line items for "advertising," "outreach," "communications," and "engagement"—and redirect it toward infrastructure that actually serves progressive movements.

    Traditional ad spend: Money → Billionaire platform → Maybe your message gets seen → Zero lasting infrastructure

    C4H model: Money → Creators in your community → Authentic messaging that resonates → Building permanent progressive infrastructure

    The creators you fund today become the communication network you rely on tomorrow. Their audiences trust them because they're not ads—they're real people talking about issues they actually care about. That trust can't be bought through traditional advertising, but it can be supported through fair compensation for authentic content.

    This is strategic infrastructure building disguised as a marketing budget. Every campaign builds our collective capacity to counter right-wing messaging without depending on platforms that work against our interests.

  • You can learn about the different ways to resource, collaborate, sponsor, ‘hire’, and partner by clicking here.

    Since we’re in our pilot phase, if you have a unique idea or strategy for ways to work together, please let us know via the contact form.

faq

Creator autonomy & Value alignment

  • Opt-In Participation: Every C4H campaign is opt-in for creators; no one is required to participate in any given topic or campaign.

    Briefs and Acceptance: For each coordinated campaign, C4H issues a campaign brief that outlines key facts, explains the sponsor, etc. Creators decide whether this campaign resonates with their audience.

    Content Approval Process: Funders, Sponsors, Collaborators and C4H leadership do not approve creators' content.

    Editorial Control: Creators retain full autonomy over the angle, format, voice, and timing of their content, so long as they operate within the campaign's agreed boundaries. There is no scripting, mandated language, or required coverage of all topics.

    Declining Campaigns: At any point, creators may decline to participate in a briefed campaign or opt out of specific topics—even if they remain within the overall C4H network.

    Recognition and Honoraria in Paid Pilot: The paid pilot requires participating creators to hit a campaign quota mo

  • Before submitting their application form, creators are asked to ensure they are personally in alignment with the following:

    Team Humanity Alignment

    • Collective liberation is the goal. Survival within this system is the reality. Both must be held.

    • Colonization is not in the past—it is active, ongoing, and shapes so much of our world's current reality.

    • The system protects the powerful 1% and punishes the rest of us. That's not dysfunction—it's design.

    • Corporations, billionaires, and institutions are not neutral. They profit from exploitation and avoid accountability.

    • Fascism isn't a hypothetical threat—it's here, and it must be opposed in all forms.

    • Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere - "imperialist white supremacy capitalist patriarchy", a term coined by bell hooks, explains how these issues are not separate—they reinforce each other.

    • Climate justice is indigenous justice

    • Genocide is always unacceptable, this includes (but isn't limited to) the genocide of Indigenous peoples on Turtle Island, the Holocaust and the ongoing genocide of Palestinians

    • Human rights of all people should be upheld

    • Black, Indigenous, People of Colour, Trans, Queer, Disabled, Migrant, Women, and Lower Income folks have long experienced systemic violence and oppression in Canada.

    Intentional Community Building Understandings

    • Being in community requires grace, boundaries, and the ability to navigate disagreement without defaulting to harm or fragility

    • Everyone is doing their best, and there is space to know better and do better

    • Not everyone shows up in the same way

    • The goal is to build something bigger than any one individual

    • This space is for being in community—not just getting content ideas or exposure

    • This is not about clout or aesthetics—it's about building capacity, coordination, and culture-shifting infrastructure

  • When you apply to join C4H, you complete what we call a "vibe check"—basically confirming that our core values resonate with you personally. This isn't about forcing anyone to create specific content or policing what you post. It's about making sure we're all starting from the same factual foundation.

    Here's how it works: You need to understand and accept certain realities (like: settler colonialism in Canada is ongoing, not historical). But you don't have to make content about these issues if that's not your thing. You just can't create content that actively contradicts them.

    For example: ✅ You understand that settler colonial violence exists in Canada today ✅ You never have to post about it if you don't want to ❌ You can't make content claiming it's only a historical issue

    or

    ✅ You understand that independent scientists and organizations have proven that we are in a climate emergency. The science is sound. ✅ You never have to post about the environment or climate crisis if you don't want to ❌ You can't make content claiming that the climate crisis is fake.

    Why this matters: We're building coordinated power, not an echo chamber. Creators maintain full editorial control within these boundaries—you choose your angle, your format, your timing. We're just making sure we're all working from shared reality, not conflicting "facts."

    This approach is standard for values-driven collectives and advocacy groups. It's voluntary, transparent, and lets creators maintain their authentic voice while ensuring we're not undermining each other's work.

    By putting it on the website, the application form, and in our onboarding meetings, C4H ensures hopeful applicants fully understand what our collective norms are.

  • No one is required to join C4H. If you don't align with the values, you don't have to join. We are also not required to provide a spot in our community to all participants.

More On Values

legal FAQ

  • As company policy, creators are told exactly who funds each campaign—whether it’s a specific union, nonprofit, or business partner. Before opting into any campaign, creators know where the money comes from so they can make informed decisions about participation.

    What disclosure is required on content?

    C4H requires creators to disclose partnership in every piece of sponsored content. Creators can freely discuss C4H, their involvement, critique the organization, and share experiences. While specific upstream funders aren’t always named in posts (not legally required), audiences always know content is sponsored by C4H

  • Competition Act & Advertising Standards Requirements

    What MUST Be Disclosed:

    • Any “material connection” (payment, free products, partnerships, gifts)

    • Must be in EVERY piece of sponsored content

    • Must be “clear, conspicuous, and in plain language”

    • Must be easily visible (not buried in comments or bio)



    How to Disclose Properly:

    • Use explicit language: “Sponsored by C4H” or “ partnership with C4H”


    What’s NOT Required:

    • Listing every underlying funder in each post

    • Detailing specific payment amounts

    • Revealing internal organizational structure in captions

    • Naming every union partner in every piece of content

  • Quick note on the legal structure: We're still tracking down specific expertise on the regulatory landscape here—turns out progressive infrastructure building doesn't have a ton of precedent (shocking, we know). This structure might shift as we learn more about what's actually possible within Canadian law. Obviously, we're following all legal requirements; we're simply being transparent about the fact that we're learning the optimal configuration as we build. If you know a lawyer who gets movement work and corporate structures, send them our way.

misc. FAQ

  • We welcome constructive feedback via our contact us form!

    If you see ways we could improve, we genuinely want to hear them. We take thoughtful input seriously and it helps us build better infrastructure.

    We are accountable to our creators, our partners and the Board of Directors of the Canadian Association of Labour Media. 

    How we approach different perspectives

    We're building specific infrastructure for a specific purpose: coordinated progressive creator campaigns with transparency and creator autonomy. Not every approach works for everyone, and that's okay.

    Don't vibe with a particular creator? No problem—follow the ones that resonate with you. That's why creators choose their campaigns and audiences choose their content. It's all voluntary.

    Prefer different organizing methods? That's valid. We're focused on building this particular model because we've seen how effective coordination has been for the right wing over decades. We're creating infrastructure for folks who want to try something proven rather than debating what's "authentic" enough.

    Building forward, not fighting backward

    We distinguish between feedback that strengthens the work (even critical feedback) and demands that we stop building entirely . The first helps us improve. The second misses the point—progressive movements need infrastructure now, not after we achieve consensus on the perfect model.

    This is movement infrastructure designed to serve progressive organizing. It won't align with everyone's vision of activism, and that's fine. We're building for those ready to coordinate, while respecting those who choose different paths.

  • Chorus used dark money to secretly control messaging through gagged creators. C4H uses transparent coalition funding to support creators who choose which campaigns to join and must disclose their partnerships. These aren’t similar models—they’re opposites.

    The Chorus Media Scandal - The Facts:

    Chorus was a nonprofit incubator funded by the Sixteen Thirty Fund that paid progressive influencers up to $8,000/month to amplify Democratic messaging. Here’s what made it scandalous:

    The “Dark Money” Problem:

    - Sixteen Thirty Fund: Chorus was fiscally sponsored by this 501(c)(4) nonprofit, often called “dark money” because it doesn’t have to disclose its donors

    - Anonymous Billionaires: The ultimate funding sources were completely hidden—could be wealthy individuals, corporations, or foreign entities

    - Zero Accountability: No one could trace where the money actually came from

    - Double Secrecy: Hidden donors → Hidden program → Hidden from audiences

    The Contractual Secrecy Problem:

    - Mandatory Non-Disclosure: Creators were contractually forbidden from revealing they were part of Chorus or receiving payment without explicit permission

    - Hidden Funding: Audiences had no idea content was paid political messaging

    - Control Mechanisms: All political outreach had to go through Chorus first

    - Restricted Speech: Creators couldn’t discuss the program publicly even if asked directly

    The Ethical Violations:

    Triple Layer Deception:

    - Donors hidden from public

    - Program hidden from audiences

    - Payment hidden from followers

    Trust Breach: Creators appeared grassroots while being funded by anonymous billionaires

    Journalism Standards: This violates basic disclosure ethics that even lifestyle influencers follow for makeup sponsorships


    Why It Mattered:

    The scandal wasn’t just about coordination—it was about anonymous money secretly funding influencers who were contractually prohibited from disclosing it. Every layer was designed to hide the money trail.

    How is C4H fundamentally different from Chorus?

    The Transparency Test:

    - Do creators know who’s paying? C4H: Yes, always. Chorus: No.

    - Can creators talk about it? C4H: Yes, freely. Chorus: No, gagged.

    - Do audiences know content is sponsored? C4H: Yes, required. Chorus: No, hidden.

    - Can creators skip campaigns? C4H: Yes, they opt in. Chorus: Under contract for everything.

    Choice:

    - Chorus: Creators under contract for all content

    - C4H: Creators opt into specific campaigns that resonate

    Knowledge:

    - Chorus: Creators didn’t know about dark money sources

    - C4H: Creators always know exactly who funds each campaign

    Disclosure:

    - Chorus: Contractually prohibited from disclosing

    - C4H: Contractually required to disclose

    Editorial Approach: Collaborative, Not Commanding

    - No Script Approval: Creators maintain their authentic voice and perspective

    - Resource Sharing: We provide themes and materials, not marching orders

    - Creator-Led Content: Creators develop their own takes on campaign issues

    - Critical Voice Protected: Creators can disagree, critique, or decline any campaign

  • This initiative is deeply researched.

    This initiative was researched with graduate degree level of academic expertise, and coupled with professional experience and lived insight. Our strategy isn't just content creators working together to counter messaging, it is grounded in relational and collective community that often is left out of attempts at this because organizers assume "DEI" or anti-oppression principles are not relevant or are tokenistic in nature—that is fundamentally not the case here.

    We studied and met with experts to understand:

    • Far right movement building and infrastructure

    • Far right pipeline and radicalization strategies

    • Right wing messaging, coordination, and politics

    • Left movements that worked (Rainbow Coalition, labour organizing victories)

    • Reasons why the left struggles to work together

    • Decolonial public relations and strategic communications

    • Canadian media landscape and regulatory environment

    • Union organizing and labour movement history

    • Platform algorithms and content distribution

    • Coalition funding models and transparency requirements

    • Community accountability versus parasocial judgment

    • bell hooks' framework of "imperialist white supremacy capitalist patriarchy"

    Our approach draws from health science methodology for verification, equity and anti-oppression frameworks, and decades of organizing experience. This isn't thrown together—it's systematically designed to address the actual problems progressive movements face in coordinated messaging, not the problems people imagine we face.

  • Purity politics isn't exclusively a "liberal tell"—it's about how we all navigate systems of domination

    Many people dismiss concerns about purity politics as liberal weakness—and fair enough, it often is a liberal tell. But purity politics can also reveal how those who claim to be on the left are still operating within the very systems of power, domination and control they claim to oppose.

    From an anti-oppression expertise, which is reflected in the values of our work, speaks to the fact that we are all complicit—to varying degrees—to our current system of power domination and control. Power and privilege are relative, not fixed!

    So being someone who identifies as being on the 'left' does not mean you are exempt from this. Even those of us on the left exist within and are shaped by these systems. We're not innocent—none of us are.

    Example: "Amazon is bad, don't use it"

    When leftists proclaim "Amazon is bad" as an absolute, they're engaging in either/or thinking—a characteristic of white supremacy culture that Tema Okun identifies. This binary completely ignores lived realities:

    • For disabled folks, Amazon might be the only way to get necessities delivered

    • For people in rural areas or retail deserts, it's often the only affordable option

    • For those juggling multiple jobs, it saves time they don't have

    • For many marginalized communities, local stores might be inaccessible, unaffordable, or hostile

    The truth is more relative and complex. Amazon's labour practices are exploitative. Its environmental impact is devastating. It displaces local businesses. AND it's also a crucial accessibility tool for many. Both things are true.

    What bell hooks would actually ask:

    • Who has the power to choose alternatives, and who doesn't?

    • What does "shop local" mean if you can't physically access stores?

    • What does boycotting mean for someone with no other options?

    The real work isn't individual purity—it's systemic change:

    • Systemic: Regulate Amazon's labour practices, tax structures,and environmental impact

    • Community: Build actually accessible, affordable community-owned alternatives

    • Individual: Those with privilege and options should use them—without shaming those who can't

    This isn't about lowering standards. It's about recognizing that demanding moral purity from individuals while ignoring systemic constraints reproduces the very domination we claim to oppose. Real accountability means understanding context, centring those most affected, and fighting for changes that give everyone genuine choices—not just those already privileged enough to have them.

    We reject the innocent/contaminated binary. We're all navigating these systems. Liberation comes through collective action and systemic change, not through out-purifying each other while corporations keep exploiting and governments keep failing to regulate.

  • Yes, as an accessibility tool and capacity multiplier

    We know AI feels controversial. We get it. But here's our position:

    AI helps us organize non-linear thinking into digestible formats, transcribe content for different processing needs, and systematically fact-check our work.

    For those of us with ADHD, autism, or other neurodivergent brains, AI tools are accessibility accommodations that make this work possible. Every output goes through multiple rounds of human verification and sits for at least 24 hours before final review.

    The reality of technological change

    When cars were invented, some people were early adopters who saw the potential, while others stuck with horses—and that's normal. Innovation adoption always follows this pattern: innovators try it first, early adopters see the strategic value, the majority waits to see proof it works, and laggards resist until they have no choice.

    We're early adopters because we can't afford to wait. The right wing has million-dollar budgets and full-time staff. We have technology that helps one person do the work of five—while maintaining accuracy through systematic fact-checking.

    AI is only as intelligent as the person using it

    AI is only as smart as the person using it. Feed it garbage, get garbage. But use it to systematically analyze hours of video transcripts against documented pain points? Use it to cross-reference legal requirements across multiple jurisdictions? Use it to organize scattered critiques into addressable categories? That's strategic research methodology—the AI is just processing data faster than we could manually.

    This work applies graduate-level research methodology: systematic source triangulation, iterative discourse analysis, multi-stage verification protocols. Every claim gets fact-checked through at least three independent sources. We apply peer-review principles—letting work sit for 24-48 hours to identify cognitive biases, checking our logic against established frameworks, verifying that our responses actually address identified concerns. We use the same systematic review process health scientists use for meta-analysis—except we're analyzing movement discourse and coordinated messaging patterns instead of clinical trials.

    Can mistakes be made? Yes—but they can also be made without AI, and we'd argue more frequently when you're one person trying to track complex discourse across multiple platforms. According to research on AI usage patterns, only 5-10% of users apply AI in systematic, multi-stage workflows with human verification loops like we do. Most people use it for basic tasks—drafting emails, quick summaries. We're using it as a research collaborator with multiple verification stages.

    Given the rigor of our process and the reality that human-only analysis would mean slower responses to coordinated attacks, fewer accessible formats, and less comprehensive discourse tracking—we figure the trade-off is worth it. Perfect is the enemy of good, and waiting for perfect conditions means never building the infrastructure we need.

    The regulation problem isn't about the tools

    Here's what critics consistently miss: The problem isn't AI or social media or automation—it's the lack of government regulation that allows corporate exploitation.

    When grocery stores install self-checkout, those savings go to shareholders, not to price reductions or worker retraining. When social media amplifies hate, it's because governments chose not to regulate algorithmic amplification. When AI perpetuates bias, it's because policymakers prioritize corporate interests over public protection.

    The technology or tools themselves are neutral. The regulatory vacuum is political. We use these tools strategically while advocating for the systemic change that makes them less necessary—proper funding for progressive infrastructure, regulation of tech monopolies, and resources for community organizing.

Have Another Question?