Some useful stuff. Hopefully the author will get contracts out of it.
One of the items not mentioned is the usefulness of the good cop-bad cop routine with Carney being the good cop and elbozo-in-chief Doug Ford being the bad cop. Taking off the barking chihuahua’s muzzle every now and then does make Carney appear reasonable.
I would be cautious in trying to turn Democrat Governors against the President though. The howls on the Canadian side when Alberta communicated with American advisors or when Chinese foreign interference with elections came to light will be matched tenfold on the US side especially if the interference is as overt as the author suggests in this article. Especially when you consider how Canadian patriotism which admittedly has surged recently is still probably only at IMO a quarter of that of the vast majority of Americans. No Democrat will be prepared to accept gains in electoral points from Canadian influence or put himself in a position of being accused of foreign influence.
I’m puzzled at the suggestion that social media should be controlled and supervised in the same way that children’s use of this media is - or is proposed to be - controlled by government. Who will decide? Bureaucrats with powers to fine and jail with no appeal as is now the case with so called “hate speech” legislation?
I personally don’t believe an agreement will be reached until the Quebec election results are known and the Federal government then decides on their position.
Governments could seriously impact online platforms by requiring sites to verify the identity of their users as a guard against bot nets. Stripping away the anonymity of social media discourse would also turn down the temperature of the rhetoric: people who'll rage and swear at other people from the interior of their car will rarely if ever do the same thing to another person's face.
Agree 100 %. But how do you accomplish and enforce? It would be interesting to implement. The fear of government imposing consequences on people who disagree with it (eg tax audits, traffic tickets, bureaucratic delays in pension payments etc etc) would stifle any debate on public policy if the identity of the poster were known. The pusillanimity of the opposition parties arising from their fear of media reported controversy leaves no other option for healthy discussion essential to a democracy.
The Ford government's Reagan ad last year provided a strong proof point that this comms strategy would work. It caught the attention of a wide swath of Americans, it highlighted how Trump's policies broke radically from approaches that had long been successful, and Trump completely freaked out. What the Ford government should've done better is avoid the editing that Trump apologists twisted into allegations that the video had somehow been "doctored", but that crowd of Trump defenders can be depended on to twist themselves into knots in efforts to discredit any criticism.
The Trump freakout also foreshadows the Trump administration's inevitable response to a successful campaign: they will use every trick in their book to hit back at Canada. However, this has to be understood in the context of a sustained campaign that will likely conclude with the end of Trump's term. Unlike Trump's ADHD-inflected campaign against Iran, the Canadian government needs to commit to a long term strategy that won't deliver a quick win (other than hearing Trump squeal.)
Your analysis of the toxin that is social media was spot on. As a long-time subscriber to the Financial Times, I can attest to the 20-year-decline in the quality of commentary on that newspaper's commentary fora.
Much of that decline is attributable to organized trolling by paid and unpaid apologists for states (the PRC, Russia, India), political parties (the GOP and MAGA operatives from the United States, Reform UK) and disruptors (people who disrupt debate on behalf of the Kremlin and China's Ministry of State Security).
However, some is entirely a consequence of poor habits among subscribers who apparently grew up on a diet of "shock jock" commentary on the likes of "X" and Facebook. Ad hominem attacks are just the tip of the iceberg.
We can't be seen as first, strictest, limiting "platform power" because doing so is too easily linked to socialist oppression, message management by our gov in a free society. I think we'd risk losing perception. We need to follow another country's change, one that goes farther than expected, a change widely reported around the world, then quietly go even further in Canada in the shadow.
So interesting to read such high level strategizing. While it seems both Machievellian and doable, I suggest also keeping an information and messaging focus on Alberta. Canada needs a crushing win on that vote.
Some useful stuff. Hopefully the author will get contracts out of it.
One of the items not mentioned is the usefulness of the good cop-bad cop routine with Carney being the good cop and elbozo-in-chief Doug Ford being the bad cop. Taking off the barking chihuahua’s muzzle every now and then does make Carney appear reasonable.
I would be cautious in trying to turn Democrat Governors against the President though. The howls on the Canadian side when Alberta communicated with American advisors or when Chinese foreign interference with elections came to light will be matched tenfold on the US side especially if the interference is as overt as the author suggests in this article. Especially when you consider how Canadian patriotism which admittedly has surged recently is still probably only at IMO a quarter of that of the vast majority of Americans. No Democrat will be prepared to accept gains in electoral points from Canadian influence or put himself in a position of being accused of foreign influence.
I’m puzzled at the suggestion that social media should be controlled and supervised in the same way that children’s use of this media is - or is proposed to be - controlled by government. Who will decide? Bureaucrats with powers to fine and jail with no appeal as is now the case with so called “hate speech” legislation?
I personally don’t believe an agreement will be reached until the Quebec election results are known and the Federal government then decides on their position.
Governments could seriously impact online platforms by requiring sites to verify the identity of their users as a guard against bot nets. Stripping away the anonymity of social media discourse would also turn down the temperature of the rhetoric: people who'll rage and swear at other people from the interior of their car will rarely if ever do the same thing to another person's face.
Agree 100 %. But how do you accomplish and enforce? It would be interesting to implement. The fear of government imposing consequences on people who disagree with it (eg tax audits, traffic tickets, bureaucratic delays in pension payments etc etc) would stifle any debate on public policy if the identity of the poster were known. The pusillanimity of the opposition parties arising from their fear of media reported controversy leaves no other option for healthy discussion essential to a democracy.
A predictably good piece of work on strategic communications. Thanks for this.
The Ford government's Reagan ad last year provided a strong proof point that this comms strategy would work. It caught the attention of a wide swath of Americans, it highlighted how Trump's policies broke radically from approaches that had long been successful, and Trump completely freaked out. What the Ford government should've done better is avoid the editing that Trump apologists twisted into allegations that the video had somehow been "doctored", but that crowd of Trump defenders can be depended on to twist themselves into knots in efforts to discredit any criticism.
The Trump freakout also foreshadows the Trump administration's inevitable response to a successful campaign: they will use every trick in their book to hit back at Canada. However, this has to be understood in the context of a sustained campaign that will likely conclude with the end of Trump's term. Unlike Trump's ADHD-inflected campaign against Iran, the Canadian government needs to commit to a long term strategy that won't deliver a quick win (other than hearing Trump squeal.)
Your analysis of the toxin that is social media was spot on. As a long-time subscriber to the Financial Times, I can attest to the 20-year-decline in the quality of commentary on that newspaper's commentary fora.
Much of that decline is attributable to organized trolling by paid and unpaid apologists for states (the PRC, Russia, India), political parties (the GOP and MAGA operatives from the United States, Reform UK) and disruptors (people who disrupt debate on behalf of the Kremlin and China's Ministry of State Security).
However, some is entirely a consequence of poor habits among subscribers who apparently grew up on a diet of "shock jock" commentary on the likes of "X" and Facebook. Ad hominem attacks are just the tip of the iceberg.
Helpful and worth considering
One concern:
We can't be seen as first, strictest, limiting "platform power" because doing so is too easily linked to socialist oppression, message management by our gov in a free society. I think we'd risk losing perception. We need to follow another country's change, one that goes farther than expected, a change widely reported around the world, then quietly go even further in Canada in the shadow.
So interesting to read such high level strategizing. While it seems both Machievellian and doable, I suggest also keeping an information and messaging focus on Alberta. Canada needs a crushing win on that vote.
Solid actionable plan. But actually executing it is essential.