You may have been right 5 years ago but it's time to wake up. As a gay PhD, I've found the YouTube full of long form conversations and insights that have long disappeared from the mainstream press, or whatever I can call it without sounding silly. The gatekeepers have kept out cogent, reasoned, critical debate and I've been horrified about this for years. I had students stick solely to reading newspapers for class assignments and my own consumption of TV news is down to practically nil. So, even though there is still risk of falling down rabbit holes with YouTube, there's an even better chance that people are finding better reporting and discussion than TV has produced in some time.
That may be the case to some extent. It is also a clearinghouse of complete and utter nonsense and a sea of misinformation. I consider it a source of entertainment and nothing more. Anything considered "knowledge" needs to be checked somewhere else.
Well, too bad today's checkers and gatekeepers have absconded on their duty to provide information. Rather it's much easier for them to tell me what to think.
I think being "told what to think" is your interpretation. Far too many people don't fact check, or ignore what they find. YouTube social media in general have very little directed to reducing misinformation in the name of freedom of speech. The last 56 years have taught just how dangerous this new propaganda weapon can be.
I think this idea sorely underestimates the savviness and information capacity of the general public. Town criers have always existed and despite their ability to wield large megaphones these days, most people know the difference between that and reality. IMO, it's the media that is now the problem. They are, more often than not, contributing to a skewed worldview because they are hijacking our negativity bias and thus distorting everything, feeding us opinions instead of the facts to make up our own minds, however much you or anyone else my disagree with what that produces. The way I see it, despite the risks, the way to combat lunacy is with more speech.
I wish that was true. I don't believe it is. I think the level of stupidity and blind ignorance of fact is actually growing. A properly funded media might be far more useful, but that ship has sailed.
If that were true, society would be a lot worse off, imo. People are going about their lives despite the nonsense out there. A properly competitive media is what we need now.
The last two years have been all about underestimating the savviness and information capacity of the general public, and overestimating the honesty and intelligence of the media and elites.
Unfortunately, the latter has encouraged the public to behave in ways that seem to validate the former.
You may not be wrong, but legislators and executives have a strong disincentive (for the social psychology reasons you note) to point out to voters that they have made an error.
Perhaps. It's voters who need to be sold on voting but more and more they stay in one corner of the political spectrum and are taken for granted. Hence why I want more people to read more so they can stand strong in the centre and have the politicos move to them rather than two tribes in bubbles barking at each other.
But Patricia, we all know they don't seek confirmatory evidence/argument elsewhere. And if they do they go no further than the "evidence" that's just over there, and over there. Three sites give them essentially the same information (if they go that far) and a rabbit hole opens wide. Confirmation bias abounds.
Is it possible that your "long form" conversations and insights have disappeared from "mainstream" press because they are no longer viable, have been disproven, or have little or no audience? Without knowing what you find valuable or consider news I can only guess but blaming "gatekeepers" or the "mainstream press" for what you are missing seems disingenuous. What was the assignment that caused students to stick solely to reading newspapers and what does your consumption of tv news have to do with it.
We live in an ever more complicated and busy world and online it's grown exponentially. People are not anywhere near as savvy at sorting thru information as you like to think. People will settle for what is comfortable and familiar. They may not start out like that but it doesn't take long before they "know what they know", thank you very much. Why would you shut off valid streams of information only to insist that YouTube is the answer and encourage others to do the same?
The bigger issue, I think, it the recommendation algorithm that's finely attuned for keeping you looking/watching/scrolling. It does that by serving up content it 'knows' (from looking at your past history) will likely keep you watching. In practice, that doesn't mean serving up content that will broaden your perspective, or provide insight (as it has no idea how to do that!). It's simply about keeping you watching.
That's the mental equivilent of moving to a diet of potato chips -- you keep wanting to eat them, but they don't provide balanced nutrition.
Yes, on many platforms you can choose to be more proactive in what you are fed; Twitter allows you to move to a chronological feed, for example, and you can simply look at the channels you subscribe to on YouTube. But the default is to recommend you content with the sole goal of keeping you on their product. That seems to have a lot of not-great impacts from societal impact point of view.
I would like to see regulations that make it easy for users to choose what's in their feed -- what the criteria is. Some will still choose junk and they should be able to. But junk shouldn't be the default.
Good point. I'm definitely not saying one can just blindly tool around in YouTube and expect good quality information. Basically, as one Eastern European political observer has said, we Westerns were lucky when we could read 1 newspaper and get a good picture of what's going on. Eastern Europeans had to read 6 to cut through the propaganda. And today, I'm afraid, we're in that kind of environment, where it's incumbent on people to seek out quality information rather than just rely on the usual sources.
I don't believe I am missing the point at all. You are happy with the information you are getting from YouTube, etc. I'm really not very impressed with YouTube. Using PP as an example (bc I don't know what you count as important info) I suppose he could be an example of a savvy YouTube user to you? While I completely disagree. Nothing to do with Eastern European political advisors in some unspecified decade. You also don't specify what you consider quality sources. It's easy to hook up with pro YouTubers like Breedlove because he's selling and you're buying. (Not you specifically, or maybe you do, but whatever).
If I am missing the point it is because you keep changing the point.
As you say, it boils down on how one uses new tech. Either it's understood for what it is and harnessed or denounced. As for my points, I'm sure there's lots more to say but let's leave it at that.
Scholarship and media are not the same thing. You would not have earned your degrees citing only newspapers and websites. Media is a business with no duty to conclude what is best to pursue nor the best means to pursue it. That's why legislators and executives rely on scholars and scientists.
This argument makes some sense, but the problem is that our Covid response has shown that the "expert" class is clearly willing and able to intentionally lie, mislead, and delude itself en masse in order to conform with uninformed and just plain wrong opinions that they see in mass media or hear from politicians, so long as they see a personal professional or public political goal in doing so.
Where does that leave us, epistemologically? In deep trouble, frankly. True radical skepticism, while warranted, is tough to sustain.
Poilievre may well be wrong, but at least he, unlike MacDougall, knows there's a problem.
1. PP watches YouTube channel to learn about Crypto. Said YT channel has criticized central banking and has spoken about topics the writer has decided are conspiracy theories. Therefore PP is a bad person and should not be CPC leader.
2. Gatekeepers curate knowledge and report on current events. The writer does not want to put in the effort to learn about things by himself, so the mainstream press does the work for him. Therefore, gatekeepers are Good. PP is BAD.
3. Only peer reviewed knowledge appearing in gatekept publications are approved sources for information. Everything else is fake news. Therefore EXPERTS are good. PP is bad.
Did I say the writer wants you to know that PP is bad?
Seriously though, what is happening here? I thought the whole idea behind The Line was to remove the idea of gatekeeper from reporting and get perspectives and information that would otherwise not be published in mainstream press. But this is just a plain hit job on Poilievre. Isn't the mainstream press doing enough of these hit jobs on Poilievre?
Partisans have a tendency to take a word (like 'gatekeepers') and redefine it as shorthand for a chunk of ideology. I always get pretty curious when this happens as it seems to be a way to drive a coordinated and coherent message, which is great for political parties but terrible for debate and critical thinking.
Very, very little of modern life is experienced directly without some kind of gatekeeper. Modern civilization depends on specialization; we all depend on the expertise of others. It's fair to evaluate those folks -- to determine who is good at their job and who we can trust. But we seem to confuse having access to lots of inforamation with expertise. Having a complete set of woodworking tools doesn't make me a carpenter and having access to endless information (and misinformation and a LOT of opinion) doesn't make me an expert on everything. We need gatekeepers. It's fair to question them, to keep them honest, but the idea that we'll all do well by just going with what 'feels' right, frankly, like believing that we all can be carpenters if we just have access to the right tools.
And, I don't know where you got the idea that The Line is promising no gatekeepers. It's mostly opinion -- the most 'gatekeeper' thing there is. I'm literally paying to read Matt and Jen's opinions (as they are well written and well considered) and to have them curate a bunch of other opionions they think readers like me might like. The promise isn't no gatekeepers -- it's have a choice of more gatekeepers.
As an Engineer myself who is struggling to get certified because of the same gatekeeper policies that PP is specifically fighting against, I definitely do not find it in anyway partisan. In fact, the simplistic reduction of the usage of the term "gatekeepers" to denote partisan politics is incorrect and is typically done to build a critical narrative (like this writer here). One needs to see what specific gatekeepers are being referred to and actually spend time to understand how those gatekeepers are impacting society.
There are engineering gatekeepers? Are they woke? Are they elites? One hasn't the time or inclination to worry about specific gatekeepers AND do one's own research.
Well, yes. It doesn't mean shopping centres won't collapse after an engineer says it's safe but, Holy Batman, are you saying there should not be engineering gatekeepers, otherwise known as something like certification organisations?
Of course there must be engineering gatekeepers. It's Akshay "who is struggling to get certified because of the same gatekeeper policies that PP is specifically fighting against".
I have no idea what policies are stymieing Akshay, but apparently PP will help him out.
The engineering professional associations are pretty level-headed. There’s the occasional bubble of the latest social fads (currently you’ve got to compete a 1 hour online course about Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion as part of your continuing education requirements), but it’s heavily focused on ensuring that professional engineers are doing their job properly and the public is protected. Getting foreign credentials can sometimes be challenging for new applicants. The association often doesn’t know if the school teaches a comparable curriculum to credentialed Canadian schools. They also may not know if foreign work experience is comparable to Canadian practice. So, there’s a lot of hoops to jump through to figure all that out, or else applicants need to take a series of exams to establish competency. I knew a lot of people in grad studies who decided to avoid the whole thing by completing a 12-18-month course-based M.Eng. degree to get that Canadian credential.
The internet is a mostly unregulated information marketplace. That's both its strength and (increasingly) its weakness. I'm sometimes shocked at the clearly fraudulent advertising served up via social, including an ad on YouTube for a phone charger that apparently can make your smartphone defeat the 'planned obsolesence' built into updates (hint: it won't). That kind of ad wouldn't make it past the 'gatekeepers' in the old media, but it slips throught the cracks (at least for a while) in automated systems like social media.
And, that's just the ads!
The problem is that the digital realm is getting really noisy with crap information, which makes finding useful stuff harder and harder. Which in turn reduces the utility of the internet. And, it also seems to be hurting civil society. But, as the Liberal government is discovering, regulating the internet without violating people's freedom of expression is a lot harder than it sounds!
The best solution would be for all of us to become a lot more media savvy; to think about who is providing information online (if they are identifiable, and if they aren't, start wondering why) and what their motivations might be. A smarter population is harder to fool and social media really responds to us -- what we engage with. If we get smarter, the crap will stop getting eyeballs.
What we have today isn't sustainable, though. Either we find ways for people to be personally accountable for posting lies, crap and scams, or eventually we'll all slowly start to tune out of the digital realm (or become far more selective at what we engage with).
The old gatekeepers are gone, for better or for worse. Information now spreads through largely unregulated mediums, those running the platform have a limited ability to regulate the content shared, and what does get removed largely comes down to political and social pressure concerning a specific issue (say, vaccine misinformation), or censoring harmful content, like harassment, threats, etc. No one is really out there deleting misinformation, there's just too much, and social networks aren't news platforms.
Creating media-savvy citizens is one prong of what is probably a many-pronged approach to dealing with this new world. I'm not an expert, so I don't know what other relevant prongs are -- perhaps some form of government regulation is in order.
Having publicly-funded news corporations is not necessarily the evil some people seem to think it is. While the CBC does have some... questionable reporting and some ideological capture, it still serves me reasonably well. Just having it as a news source option is valuable -- and protecting it from the sometimes harmful incentives of a click-focused world seems like a good thing. What we click is what we like, but no one recommends a junk food diet!
This last decade has seen three things: journalists have been laid off in huge numbers. There has been a dramatic increase in the amount of venom shown toward them and thirdly they are expected to provide timely accurate information via tweets, newspaper stories. I am a strong believer in good journalism - why I pay for three subscriptions. Journalists play an incredibly important role in the face of shrinking pay and animosity
I am tired of hearing people complain in a generic way about journalists. I agree 100% with Mr. MacDougall.
Lets just say that the peer-reviewed information today is not what it used to be. It is, as the Corporate and Government Financed Media is, an outlet for the ideological dogma of the Government and its Corporate allies. Peer reviewed means, people funded by the government agree with each other for an intended purpose. Science is no longer science as that too has been corrupted due to funding by the very same sources.
They have proven to be untrustworthy as have all the Institutions who recieve funding from or are connected to the Government of Canada. Even the banks have lost credibility for the same reasons. That is why bitcoin and Crypto are popular as they are not controlled by the greedy elites. I would think, due to its popularity with many people, along with other trusted news sources, that these same people are aiding in the demise of both. Hense the crash of the crypto world and the need to silence all those other voices. The truth shall be what they say it is and you will repeat it whether you believe it or not.
How so? He believes that like himself and others he knows, Pierre only listens to one person. There are many people within the crypto world including government and the bank of Canada. I would suggest it is those in powerful positions and connected to the Bank of Canada and it’s political affiliates that is damaging the crypto market to feed their own banking interests. No matter how you look at it the Bank of Canada and the collusion with the Government of Canada and the elites has completely damaged any credibility they once or will ever have. They and the elites are the cause of the destruction of crypto and bitcoin as they must be destroyed to deter people from using anything but their currency as With out the control of money the Bank and Government have no control over anyone.
The very reason many escaped Ukraine was due to bitcoin and crypto as it was difficult to obtain Ukraine’s monetary currency. It’s not connected to governments unless governments know how to buy, sell, and short it enough to cause severe damage purposely. It’s not that it’s not regulated but the government must make it so, to gain control of it. It ceases to be of value to anyone seeking freedom if it is controlled by the regime and its affiliates. That is not what the author said at all.
Any person with even a little common sense does not invest in only one thing. That’s financial suicide. You invest in many things but look at all avenues. Gold for instance, crypto, bitcoin, and commodities. The Bank of Canada and the Government of the day are destroying the Canadian dollar intentionally as no banker or Prime Minister does the things they have, unless it’s purposeful. Remember, you will own nothing and be happy. That’s the plan. This is not a Conspiracy theory as the WEF talks openly about this as does the elites that conglomerate in Davos or discuss deals through those they meet with there.
If they control crypto and bitcoin it’s no longer separated from the rest of the monetary system hence making it useless.
I have know idea who Breedlove is. I listen to many different people and opinions. I invest in what I know and trust, not what any one person tells me too. I don’t imagine Pierre does either so the entire context of this piece is being strategically written for the purpose to discredit Pierre, Crypto and Bitcoin. The Bank of Canada and the Government must destroy the credibility of crypto and Bitcoin as it puts their very need to exist in peril.
Breedlove, the 2nd paragraph of the article. Skippy's crypto guy.
No one has to discredit crypto (Bitcoin is just one of hundreds of crypto-currencies. The BoC and the feds are not trying to destroy anyones credibility. No one is out to get everyone ML. The BoC, the feds, JT, or any of the other institutions you are so leery of are not in any peril to their existence by Pierre, Bitcoin or anyone else.
First of all, PePo has been talking about a LOT of other things besides crypto and the Bank of Canada - it is HARDLY a 'jihad'.
The massive overreaction of the punditry to some fairly non-controversial ad lib comments Mr Poilievre has made (literally hundreds of articles arising from an off the cuff one-liner) tells me that he has struck a nerve.
...and in someone who is actively running to become Opposition Leader, perhaps someday even Prime Minister, isn't this EXACTLY the goal?
What? Did you expect him to run for this position by agreeing with everything currently being done?
When Trudeau was in this exact same position, he said MANY outrageous things, many of which he later backtracked on. I don't recall him being raked over the coals for it - in fact I'm fairly certain he was hailed for thinking fresh thoughts....
PePo (cute) has recieved a LOT of press, mainstream and otherwise, because he didn't wait for O'Toole to step down from the goodbye podium before he was shrieking that he was running for Prime Minister. We all know how stupid that is. Skippy jumped on the crypto wagon shrieking all sorts of crap and attacking the BoC. I know he was finance critic but learning about how economies work on YouTube is just silly. Skippy's Vancouver YT about the $5 million house that once was home to a waitress and trucker hubby was straight up BS. And he shrieks about everything. He pumped out video after video before anyone else got sorted. That's why he got the coverage. He did it on purpose and also knowing that this far out he can say anything. Cons will buy it. No one expects him to agree with anyone, but he could agree with somethings, and he could stop the inflating and the dishonesty and the outright lies. He could stop shrieking.
PePo is not running to be the Opposition Leader. Nor is he running for the Cons. He's running for Skippy for PM.
And what Trudeau has said or has not said isn't worth a flying fart. It's PePo we are talking about.
That’s funny, I don’t hear any shrieking. I hear an articulate person talking common sense. As do many other Canadians, and not just those who have traditionally voted conservative.
It’s been quite a few years since we’ve heard any common sense from our politicians, so maybe to ears accustomed to the soothing lies we’ve been fed, simple common sense sounds like a shriek.
Skippy has been nails on blackboards since he became an MP. I find it difficult to listen to him for more than the few seconds it takes to crank the volume down.
"Some of the worlds most informed subject matter experts, as recognized by their peers, are on Youtube." That's very true and what I love about the internet. What's equally true is the wildly misinformed, swindlers, scammers and other nefarious folks are also on Youtube and the internet generally. Heck, the real-life Grandpa Simpsons yelling at the kids also have YouTube accounts :-)
The medium isn't partularly adept at helping people distinguish between signal and noise -- even if our definitions and signal and noise differ. Some platforms are better than others, but the process is pretty opaque (and, I get that's in part to stay ahead of the nefarious folks). The sheer volume of noise is starting to make it harder to find the signal. And, if the 'marketplace of ideas' isn't a trustworthy one, then a lot of the benefit of having direct accesss to some of the world's most informed subject matter experts will be lost (or at least dulled).
Pierre is getting traction because he's using techniques that worked long before the internet was a thing, though. It feels a lot like Social Credit with a bit of a blockchain sheen! People love to hear that there's an easy solution for tough realities. The problem comes when you actually have to deliver!
Overall, this strikes me as a very sensible piece.
Whereby I mean, the point that partisanship whether it's being for or against, crypto, Youtube, Poilievre, A, B or C, needs to be based upon a sound social process of evaluation and adjudication.
Why? Because truth is a social product requiring sustained human labour. Not magical thinking and narcissistic self-assertion. Our truth-producing social processes are under pressure from two sides, the proliferation of opinion-makers and influencers of online media megaphones (the rabbit holes of partisan ideology), and on the other, the deterioration of public social organizations that might invest in sustained, quality research (the ideal of traditional gatekeepers). Science is the model of truth-making, if not always the example. Politics? Of ideology and megaphones?
It remains unclear how or if this tension will resolve itself in a manner beneficial to the human species. The world is becoming increasingly more complex with ever-increasing stress points, with mobs chasing delusions and gatekeepers hiding in bunkers, each of which seem like dead-end solutions to sustainable human progress.
Do we need a sensible re-invention of our politics to find more stable, reality-based consensuses? Can media manage to distill information from misinformation and disinformation? Of course, as in all things, death is the final arbiter. What survives, is true! (Clearly reflecting an evolutionary ideological bias here.)
I think the very language you are using is part of the problem. "Truth is a social product", "truth-producing", "truth-making". We should be using expressions like "discovering", or "identifying", to indicate that truth is an understanding of an objective reality. When you say "reality-based" you are nodding to this approach, but the temptation to "make" truth that suits one's politics is very strong, and only a commitment to objective reality could possibly defeat it.
To return to a world of credible gatekeepers, the gatekeepers themselves must commit to objective truth.
Well I don't entirely disagree. I could do a little more social work here and distinguish knowledge (the social product of human work) from truth or falsity as properties of statements. The dictionary definition of knowledge ('justified true belief') may offer some help here, where our beliefs can be true or false, but without our having justification for which is which. I may have a true belief but not 'know' it or be able to demonstrate it to someone else, because I failed to produce an adequate justification for my belief.
As for objective truth and objective reality, putting epistemological relativism aside (merely for brevity), your suggestion that "To return to a world of credible gatekeepers, the gatekeepers themselves must commit to objective truth", is not ideologically neutral (where ideology signifies a collective 'motivating' interest or belief). Objectivity is an assumption to begin with, producing examples of it involves a commitment to sustained coordination and consensus. In other words, objective truth and objective reality as objectives of human work are beliefs that typically need to be shared in order to be realized and acted upon as knowledge.
The essential point being, the production of truth (knowledge) can not be separated from collective human motivation (ideology).
In more mundane terms, if I can get what I want by lying (disinformation), why tell the truth? In other words, truth as a social production needs a motivating objective. In war, it is generally presumed to be efficacious to lie to one's enemies to gain advantage. If a society is at war, there's likely little consensus about what counts as objective truth and reality. Thus the lack of consensus, even concerning objective reality, may be evidence of a society fiercely at war with itself.
Even if we assume a debate where everyone agrees that 'objective reality' exists and it's what we need to 'discover' or 'identify' to act in concert, that process of discovery remains a social process. Unless you believe in a completely individualistic intuitive apprehension of objective realities (godly bolts of lightning), social work amongst groups of people needs to take place for those discoveries to occur. And what counts as a justified true belief requires the social work of producing a consensus about any shared reality.
I agree, and you raise an interesting point. We all know that the idea of the possibility or existence of objective truth is under attack in the academy. And we all know that "experts" have jettisoned truth over the past two years in many respects (efficacy of lockdowns and cloth masks, natural immunity, COVID risk to kids, to name the least controversial). But were those experts in fact lying?
In other words, were they intentionally lying in order to defeat their "enemies", and get the public to obey them? Or did they simply, following academia, not believe in the possibility of truth at all, so that utterances have no purpose other getting people to do what you want?
In any event, I completely agree that the discovery of truth is generally a social process. In fact, I strongly believe that the social atomization caused by lockdowns directly impaired our ability to discover truth (or produce knowledge, much the same thing) - without dinner parties, we know nothing.
And I am fully aware that I am calling for (but, sadly, not expecting) a change in the ideology of gatekeepers.
"We all know...". No we do not. Let's start with your subjective, not objective, reality. The gatekeepers will never live up to your expectations. Quibbling about the words used for your objective reality is a waste of time, tho I thoroughly enjoyed Robert's response to you.
Would a "ferret hole" be the one you go down to find rabbit-hunters? This is written, not video, bu is the best takedown of crypto myths I've seen so far:
It doesn't matter whether it's video, or cable TV news that repeats and repeats and repeats the same hyped-up story (45 pieces on the "New Black Panthers"; heard of them, lately?), or the "9/11 Truther" text web sites that existed years before YouTube was invented. You either keep reinforcing the same story in your head, or you go *looking* for countervailing information, see if it holds up. "Science" is what it is, because it goes looking for contradictions.
In a nod to the right wing, let me recommend Jonathan Kay's "Among the Truthers", a whole book on conspiracy theorists. They have clear markers, and Poiliviere doesn't match. He's cynically using conspiracy theories for electoral purposes, but I don't think he believes them.
And that’s the tragedy, isn’t it? When I watch him give a speech or an interview, I am struck by his demeanour. I think he is just enjoying playing people. Way back, I was a teacher. He reminds me of the Grade 3s. That’s about the age when kids figure out that they have free agency and many really spend a lot of time testing that. I think that image, for me, is here to stay. Conservative supporters deserve better.
Over the years I have enjoyed Andrew's writing, even when his role as a pr flak for Harper had me shouting at my computer. His stances have moderated recently to where I often find myself in agreement with his columns.
Given Andrew MacDougall's political provenance, does this critical piece suggest that Harperites are backing away from former cabinet minister PP as a viable leader?
Trust. We've had our trust in institutions betrayed again and again, so we reach for something that we feel we can trust, knowing the risk we take. Sure there's lots of trash on YouTube, but there's plenty of trash on every newsstand. We just need to be mindful of what we're consuming, and assume there's a spectrum of truth in everything.
Bitcoin is interesting tech, and agreed, it's not a viable investment or stable medium of exchange, but how bad has our trust in modern currencies gotten to make it even remotely trustworthy?
Why, in every leadership election, the CPC winds up shooting itself in the foot? The purpose of a political party is to win elections. It has no other purpose. Choosing a leader who promotes air-supported "fintech" just before the air was sucked out of the balloon is setting the CPC for yet another pratfall in 2025, or whenever even Trudeau has had his fill of Singh.
I still dream the Liberals will recognise Trudeau as the liability that he is and dump him before 2025. He's all that's holding them back from a majority.
Really? Trudeau can't grasp issues well enough to find a middle way. His opinion on cryptocurrencies' resilience to inflation would be that he will always support a woman's right to choose.
And we will all go along doing what we always have and we vote Lib or Con. And then we are all happy or sad/mad depending on who we gave our vote to. Then the NDP, the Greens, Max's PPC (soooo unoriginal but that's Max) and the tiny little parties all promise themselves they will do better next time. And nothing really changes.
Just imagine what it would be like if the NDP or the Greens (not Max) actually formed government. Government is not nimble so in one term nothing too dreadful would happen and as they really aren't in entitlement mode some good things could come about. Nothing worse than the usuals would do and boy, that would be a wake up call on them wouldn't it?
I didn't care for Jagmeet early days but now I am more impressed.
Until Martin had the electoral boundaries changed here for the 06 election, l would vote for the NDP candidate. He was the incumbent and l voted for him as the man, not the party, per se. We did make the mistake of giving the Provincial NDP the reins of power, once. It was a mistake and not repeated thank god, as the experience was unpleasant. I do like some of the dipper platforms but after Justin has spent our great grandchildren into poverty the past couple of years, we can't afford a Jaggy dog pile on top of. But yes you're right, we'll probably keep up with the LPC/CPC merry-go-round.
I remember when Rae was NDP Premier. What were his/party's big mistakes? The recession was everywhere, Rae didn't start it tho he has been accused of it. We were watching the Socreds implode in '90. (Yay!)
I also remember Mike Harris' Common Sense Revolution (ha). I also hear that Harris is raking it in from LTC.
But what boggles is the Ford brothers.
I suppose it's a matter of being careful what you wish for, you just might get it. And that applies both fed and provincial.
You may have been right 5 years ago but it's time to wake up. As a gay PhD, I've found the YouTube full of long form conversations and insights that have long disappeared from the mainstream press, or whatever I can call it without sounding silly. The gatekeepers have kept out cogent, reasoned, critical debate and I've been horrified about this for years. I had students stick solely to reading newspapers for class assignments and my own consumption of TV news is down to practically nil. So, even though there is still risk of falling down rabbit holes with YouTube, there's an even better chance that people are finding better reporting and discussion than TV has produced in some time.
That may be the case to some extent. It is also a clearinghouse of complete and utter nonsense and a sea of misinformation. I consider it a source of entertainment and nothing more. Anything considered "knowledge" needs to be checked somewhere else.
Well, too bad today's checkers and gatekeepers have absconded on their duty to provide information. Rather it's much easier for them to tell me what to think.
I think being "told what to think" is your interpretation. Far too many people don't fact check, or ignore what they find. YouTube social media in general have very little directed to reducing misinformation in the name of freedom of speech. The last 56 years have taught just how dangerous this new propaganda weapon can be.
I think this idea sorely underestimates the savviness and information capacity of the general public. Town criers have always existed and despite their ability to wield large megaphones these days, most people know the difference between that and reality. IMO, it's the media that is now the problem. They are, more often than not, contributing to a skewed worldview because they are hijacking our negativity bias and thus distorting everything, feeding us opinions instead of the facts to make up our own minds, however much you or anyone else my disagree with what that produces. The way I see it, despite the risks, the way to combat lunacy is with more speech.
I wish that was true. I don't believe it is. I think the level of stupidity and blind ignorance of fact is actually growing. A properly funded media might be far more useful, but that ship has sailed.
If that were true, society would be a lot worse off, imo. People are going about their lives despite the nonsense out there. A properly competitive media is what we need now.
The last two years have been all about underestimating the savviness and information capacity of the general public, and overestimating the honesty and intelligence of the media and elites.
Unfortunately, the latter has encouraged the public to behave in ways that seem to validate the former.
I may regret opening this can of worms, but where does the convoy fit into this?
You may not be wrong, but legislators and executives have a strong disincentive (for the social psychology reasons you note) to point out to voters that they have made an error.
Perhaps. It's voters who need to be sold on voting but more and more they stay in one corner of the political spectrum and are taken for granted. Hence why I want more people to read more so they can stand strong in the centre and have the politicos move to them rather than two tribes in bubbles barking at each other.
The point being made, though, is you don't swallow the stuff whole. You seek confirmatory evidence/argument elsewhere.
But Patricia, we all know they don't seek confirmatory evidence/argument elsewhere. And if they do they go no further than the "evidence" that's just over there, and over there. Three sites give them essentially the same information (if they go that far) and a rabbit hole opens wide. Confirmation bias abounds.
Fair point.
Is it possible that your "long form" conversations and insights have disappeared from "mainstream" press because they are no longer viable, have been disproven, or have little or no audience? Without knowing what you find valuable or consider news I can only guess but blaming "gatekeepers" or the "mainstream press" for what you are missing seems disingenuous. What was the assignment that caused students to stick solely to reading newspapers and what does your consumption of tv news have to do with it.
We live in an ever more complicated and busy world and online it's grown exponentially. People are not anywhere near as savvy at sorting thru information as you like to think. People will settle for what is comfortable and familiar. They may not start out like that but it doesn't take long before they "know what they know", thank you very much. Why would you shut off valid streams of information only to insist that YouTube is the answer and encourage others to do the same?
The bigger issue, I think, it the recommendation algorithm that's finely attuned for keeping you looking/watching/scrolling. It does that by serving up content it 'knows' (from looking at your past history) will likely keep you watching. In practice, that doesn't mean serving up content that will broaden your perspective, or provide insight (as it has no idea how to do that!). It's simply about keeping you watching.
That's the mental equivilent of moving to a diet of potato chips -- you keep wanting to eat them, but they don't provide balanced nutrition.
Yes, on many platforms you can choose to be more proactive in what you are fed; Twitter allows you to move to a chronological feed, for example, and you can simply look at the channels you subscribe to on YouTube. But the default is to recommend you content with the sole goal of keeping you on their product. That seems to have a lot of not-great impacts from societal impact point of view.
I would like to see regulations that make it easy for users to choose what's in their feed -- what the criteria is. Some will still choose junk and they should be able to. But junk shouldn't be the default.
Good point. I'm definitely not saying one can just blindly tool around in YouTube and expect good quality information. Basically, as one Eastern European political observer has said, we Westerns were lucky when we could read 1 newspaper and get a good picture of what's going on. Eastern Europeans had to read 6 to cut through the propaganda. And today, I'm afraid, we're in that kind of environment, where it's incumbent on people to seek out quality information rather than just rely on the usual sources.
You are definitely missing the point and, I suspect, are not reading more widely to see how much the mainstream is failing.
I don't believe I am missing the point at all. You are happy with the information you are getting from YouTube, etc. I'm really not very impressed with YouTube. Using PP as an example (bc I don't know what you count as important info) I suppose he could be an example of a savvy YouTube user to you? While I completely disagree. Nothing to do with Eastern European political advisors in some unspecified decade. You also don't specify what you consider quality sources. It's easy to hook up with pro YouTubers like Breedlove because he's selling and you're buying. (Not you specifically, or maybe you do, but whatever).
If I am missing the point it is because you keep changing the point.
As you say, it boils down on how one uses new tech. Either it's understood for what it is and harnessed or denounced. As for my points, I'm sure there's lots more to say but let's leave it at that.
Scholarship and media are not the same thing. You would not have earned your degrees citing only newspapers and websites. Media is a business with no duty to conclude what is best to pursue nor the best means to pursue it. That's why legislators and executives rely on scholars and scientists.
They rely on polls, unfortunately. And media does have a duty.
This argument makes some sense, but the problem is that our Covid response has shown that the "expert" class is clearly willing and able to intentionally lie, mislead, and delude itself en masse in order to conform with uninformed and just plain wrong opinions that they see in mass media or hear from politicians, so long as they see a personal professional or public political goal in doing so.
Where does that leave us, epistemologically? In deep trouble, frankly. True radical skepticism, while warranted, is tough to sustain.
Poilievre may well be wrong, but at least he, unlike MacDougall, knows there's a problem.
Here is the TLDR:
1. PP watches YouTube channel to learn about Crypto. Said YT channel has criticized central banking and has spoken about topics the writer has decided are conspiracy theories. Therefore PP is a bad person and should not be CPC leader.
2. Gatekeepers curate knowledge and report on current events. The writer does not want to put in the effort to learn about things by himself, so the mainstream press does the work for him. Therefore, gatekeepers are Good. PP is BAD.
3. Only peer reviewed knowledge appearing in gatekept publications are approved sources for information. Everything else is fake news. Therefore EXPERTS are good. PP is bad.
Did I say the writer wants you to know that PP is bad?
Seriously though, what is happening here? I thought the whole idea behind The Line was to remove the idea of gatekeeper from reporting and get perspectives and information that would otherwise not be published in mainstream press. But this is just a plain hit job on Poilievre. Isn't the mainstream press doing enough of these hit jobs on Poilievre?
Partisans have a tendency to take a word (like 'gatekeepers') and redefine it as shorthand for a chunk of ideology. I always get pretty curious when this happens as it seems to be a way to drive a coordinated and coherent message, which is great for political parties but terrible for debate and critical thinking.
Very, very little of modern life is experienced directly without some kind of gatekeeper. Modern civilization depends on specialization; we all depend on the expertise of others. It's fair to evaluate those folks -- to determine who is good at their job and who we can trust. But we seem to confuse having access to lots of inforamation with expertise. Having a complete set of woodworking tools doesn't make me a carpenter and having access to endless information (and misinformation and a LOT of opinion) doesn't make me an expert on everything. We need gatekeepers. It's fair to question them, to keep them honest, but the idea that we'll all do well by just going with what 'feels' right, frankly, like believing that we all can be carpenters if we just have access to the right tools.
And, I don't know where you got the idea that The Line is promising no gatekeepers. It's mostly opinion -- the most 'gatekeeper' thing there is. I'm literally paying to read Matt and Jen's opinions (as they are well written and well considered) and to have them curate a bunch of other opionions they think readers like me might like. The promise isn't no gatekeepers -- it's have a choice of more gatekeepers.
As an Engineer myself who is struggling to get certified because of the same gatekeeper policies that PP is specifically fighting against, I definitely do not find it in anyway partisan. In fact, the simplistic reduction of the usage of the term "gatekeepers" to denote partisan politics is incorrect and is typically done to build a critical narrative (like this writer here). One needs to see what specific gatekeepers are being referred to and actually spend time to understand how those gatekeepers are impacting society.
There are engineering gatekeepers? Are they woke? Are they elites? One hasn't the time or inclination to worry about specific gatekeepers AND do one's own research.
Well, yes. It doesn't mean shopping centres won't collapse after an engineer says it's safe but, Holy Batman, are you saying there should not be engineering gatekeepers, otherwise known as something like certification organisations?
Of course there must be engineering gatekeepers. It's Akshay "who is struggling to get certified because of the same gatekeeper policies that PP is specifically fighting against".
I have no idea what policies are stymieing Akshay, but apparently PP will help him out.
The engineering professional associations are pretty level-headed. There’s the occasional bubble of the latest social fads (currently you’ve got to compete a 1 hour online course about Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion as part of your continuing education requirements), but it’s heavily focused on ensuring that professional engineers are doing their job properly and the public is protected. Getting foreign credentials can sometimes be challenging for new applicants. The association often doesn’t know if the school teaches a comparable curriculum to credentialed Canadian schools. They also may not know if foreign work experience is comparable to Canadian practice. So, there’s a lot of hoops to jump through to figure all that out, or else applicants need to take a series of exams to establish competency. I knew a lot of people in grad studies who decided to avoid the whole thing by completing a 12-18-month course-based M.Eng. degree to get that Canadian credential.
Unfortunately, this is a perspective widely held and it's good to see it here so it can get destroyed, IMO.
Thank you for this.
Exactly how I felt on reading this.
The internet is a mostly unregulated information marketplace. That's both its strength and (increasingly) its weakness. I'm sometimes shocked at the clearly fraudulent advertising served up via social, including an ad on YouTube for a phone charger that apparently can make your smartphone defeat the 'planned obsolesence' built into updates (hint: it won't). That kind of ad wouldn't make it past the 'gatekeepers' in the old media, but it slips throught the cracks (at least for a while) in automated systems like social media.
And, that's just the ads!
The problem is that the digital realm is getting really noisy with crap information, which makes finding useful stuff harder and harder. Which in turn reduces the utility of the internet. And, it also seems to be hurting civil society. But, as the Liberal government is discovering, regulating the internet without violating people's freedom of expression is a lot harder than it sounds!
The best solution would be for all of us to become a lot more media savvy; to think about who is providing information online (if they are identifiable, and if they aren't, start wondering why) and what their motivations might be. A smarter population is harder to fool and social media really responds to us -- what we engage with. If we get smarter, the crap will stop getting eyeballs.
What we have today isn't sustainable, though. Either we find ways for people to be personally accountable for posting lies, crap and scams, or eventually we'll all slowly start to tune out of the digital realm (or become far more selective at what we engage with).
I think you basically nail the issue.
The old gatekeepers are gone, for better or for worse. Information now spreads through largely unregulated mediums, those running the platform have a limited ability to regulate the content shared, and what does get removed largely comes down to political and social pressure concerning a specific issue (say, vaccine misinformation), or censoring harmful content, like harassment, threats, etc. No one is really out there deleting misinformation, there's just too much, and social networks aren't news platforms.
Creating media-savvy citizens is one prong of what is probably a many-pronged approach to dealing with this new world. I'm not an expert, so I don't know what other relevant prongs are -- perhaps some form of government regulation is in order.
Having publicly-funded news corporations is not necessarily the evil some people seem to think it is. While the CBC does have some... questionable reporting and some ideological capture, it still serves me reasonably well. Just having it as a news source option is valuable -- and protecting it from the sometimes harmful incentives of a click-focused world seems like a good thing. What we click is what we like, but no one recommends a junk food diet!
I use CBC only for local news. Anything else is to invite into my world nonsensical thinking.
This last decade has seen three things: journalists have been laid off in huge numbers. There has been a dramatic increase in the amount of venom shown toward them and thirdly they are expected to provide timely accurate information via tweets, newspaper stories. I am a strong believer in good journalism - why I pay for three subscriptions. Journalists play an incredibly important role in the face of shrinking pay and animosity
I am tired of hearing people complain in a generic way about journalists. I agree 100% with Mr. MacDougall.
Lets just say that the peer-reviewed information today is not what it used to be. It is, as the Corporate and Government Financed Media is, an outlet for the ideological dogma of the Government and its Corporate allies. Peer reviewed means, people funded by the government agree with each other for an intended purpose. Science is no longer science as that too has been corrupted due to funding by the very same sources.
They have proven to be untrustworthy as have all the Institutions who recieve funding from or are connected to the Government of Canada. Even the banks have lost credibility for the same reasons. That is why bitcoin and Crypto are popular as they are not controlled by the greedy elites. I would think, due to its popularity with many people, along with other trusted news sources, that these same people are aiding in the demise of both. Hense the crash of the crypto world and the need to silence all those other voices. The truth shall be what they say it is and you will repeat it whether you believe it or not.
A perfect illustration of the author's point...
How so? He believes that like himself and others he knows, Pierre only listens to one person. There are many people within the crypto world including government and the bank of Canada. I would suggest it is those in powerful positions and connected to the Bank of Canada and it’s political affiliates that is damaging the crypto market to feed their own banking interests. No matter how you look at it the Bank of Canada and the collusion with the Government of Canada and the elites has completely damaged any credibility they once or will ever have. They and the elites are the cause of the destruction of crypto and bitcoin as they must be destroyed to deter people from using anything but their currency as With out the control of money the Bank and Government have no control over anyone.
The very reason many escaped Ukraine was due to bitcoin and crypto as it was difficult to obtain Ukraine’s monetary currency. It’s not connected to governments unless governments know how to buy, sell, and short it enough to cause severe damage purposely. It’s not that it’s not regulated but the government must make it so, to gain control of it. It ceases to be of value to anyone seeking freedom if it is controlled by the regime and its affiliates. That is not what the author said at all.
Any person with even a little common sense does not invest in only one thing. That’s financial suicide. You invest in many things but look at all avenues. Gold for instance, crypto, bitcoin, and commodities. The Bank of Canada and the Government of the day are destroying the Canadian dollar intentionally as no banker or Prime Minister does the things they have, unless it’s purposeful. Remember, you will own nothing and be happy. That’s the plan. This is not a Conspiracy theory as the WEF talks openly about this as does the elites that conglomerate in Davos or discuss deals through those they meet with there.
If they control crypto and bitcoin it’s no longer separated from the rest of the monetary system hence making it useless.
ML, have you invested in Bitcoin or one of the myriad cryptocurrency available to you? Are you listening to Breedlove?
I have know idea who Breedlove is. I listen to many different people and opinions. I invest in what I know and trust, not what any one person tells me too. I don’t imagine Pierre does either so the entire context of this piece is being strategically written for the purpose to discredit Pierre, Crypto and Bitcoin. The Bank of Canada and the Government must destroy the credibility of crypto and Bitcoin as it puts their very need to exist in peril.
Breedlove, the 2nd paragraph of the article. Skippy's crypto guy.
No one has to discredit crypto (Bitcoin is just one of hundreds of crypto-currencies. The BoC and the feds are not trying to destroy anyones credibility. No one is out to get everyone ML. The BoC, the feds, JT, or any of the other institutions you are so leery of are not in any peril to their existence by Pierre, Bitcoin or anyone else.
First of all, PePo has been talking about a LOT of other things besides crypto and the Bank of Canada - it is HARDLY a 'jihad'.
The massive overreaction of the punditry to some fairly non-controversial ad lib comments Mr Poilievre has made (literally hundreds of articles arising from an off the cuff one-liner) tells me that he has struck a nerve.
...and in someone who is actively running to become Opposition Leader, perhaps someday even Prime Minister, isn't this EXACTLY the goal?
What? Did you expect him to run for this position by agreeing with everything currently being done?
When Trudeau was in this exact same position, he said MANY outrageous things, many of which he later backtracked on. I don't recall him being raked over the coals for it - in fact I'm fairly certain he was hailed for thinking fresh thoughts....
Welcome to media coverage of PP - now also brought to you by The Line.
PePo (cute) has recieved a LOT of press, mainstream and otherwise, because he didn't wait for O'Toole to step down from the goodbye podium before he was shrieking that he was running for Prime Minister. We all know how stupid that is. Skippy jumped on the crypto wagon shrieking all sorts of crap and attacking the BoC. I know he was finance critic but learning about how economies work on YouTube is just silly. Skippy's Vancouver YT about the $5 million house that once was home to a waitress and trucker hubby was straight up BS. And he shrieks about everything. He pumped out video after video before anyone else got sorted. That's why he got the coverage. He did it on purpose and also knowing that this far out he can say anything. Cons will buy it. No one expects him to agree with anyone, but he could agree with somethings, and he could stop the inflating and the dishonesty and the outright lies. He could stop shrieking.
PePo is not running to be the Opposition Leader. Nor is he running for the Cons. He's running for Skippy for PM.
And what Trudeau has said or has not said isn't worth a flying fart. It's PePo we are talking about.
That’s funny, I don’t hear any shrieking. I hear an articulate person talking common sense. As do many other Canadians, and not just those who have traditionally voted conservative.
It’s been quite a few years since we’ve heard any common sense from our politicians, so maybe to ears accustomed to the soothing lies we’ve been fed, simple common sense sounds like a shriek.
Interesting theory…
Skippy has been nails on blackboards since he became an MP. I find it difficult to listen to him for more than the few seconds it takes to crank the volume down.
Which confirms my suspicion that you have not in fact been listening to him.
That’s okay, I sympathize. I myself have a very hard time keeping my lunch down whenever I hear JT speak.
Different strokes for different folks.
We don't have to actually listen to any of them to hear what they are going on about.
Some of the worlds most informed subject matter experts, as recognized by their peers, are on Youtube.
This column is "The Line" equivalent of Grandpa Simpson yelling at kids.
Pierre wouldn't never have any traction with his messaging if our elites weren't second rate and if our gatekeepers weren't self interested clowns.
"Some of the worlds most informed subject matter experts, as recognized by their peers, are on Youtube." That's very true and what I love about the internet. What's equally true is the wildly misinformed, swindlers, scammers and other nefarious folks are also on Youtube and the internet generally. Heck, the real-life Grandpa Simpsons yelling at the kids also have YouTube accounts :-)
The medium isn't partularly adept at helping people distinguish between signal and noise -- even if our definitions and signal and noise differ. Some platforms are better than others, but the process is pretty opaque (and, I get that's in part to stay ahead of the nefarious folks). The sheer volume of noise is starting to make it harder to find the signal. And, if the 'marketplace of ideas' isn't a trustworthy one, then a lot of the benefit of having direct accesss to some of the world's most informed subject matter experts will be lost (or at least dulled).
Pierre is getting traction because he's using techniques that worked long before the internet was a thing, though. It feels a lot like Social Credit with a bit of a blockchain sheen! People love to hear that there's an easy solution for tough realities. The problem comes when you actually have to deliver!
Overall, this strikes me as a very sensible piece.
Whereby I mean, the point that partisanship whether it's being for or against, crypto, Youtube, Poilievre, A, B or C, needs to be based upon a sound social process of evaluation and adjudication.
Why? Because truth is a social product requiring sustained human labour. Not magical thinking and narcissistic self-assertion. Our truth-producing social processes are under pressure from two sides, the proliferation of opinion-makers and influencers of online media megaphones (the rabbit holes of partisan ideology), and on the other, the deterioration of public social organizations that might invest in sustained, quality research (the ideal of traditional gatekeepers). Science is the model of truth-making, if not always the example. Politics? Of ideology and megaphones?
It remains unclear how or if this tension will resolve itself in a manner beneficial to the human species. The world is becoming increasingly more complex with ever-increasing stress points, with mobs chasing delusions and gatekeepers hiding in bunkers, each of which seem like dead-end solutions to sustainable human progress.
Do we need a sensible re-invention of our politics to find more stable, reality-based consensuses? Can media manage to distill information from misinformation and disinformation? Of course, as in all things, death is the final arbiter. What survives, is true! (Clearly reflecting an evolutionary ideological bias here.)
I think the very language you are using is part of the problem. "Truth is a social product", "truth-producing", "truth-making". We should be using expressions like "discovering", or "identifying", to indicate that truth is an understanding of an objective reality. When you say "reality-based" you are nodding to this approach, but the temptation to "make" truth that suits one's politics is very strong, and only a commitment to objective reality could possibly defeat it.
To return to a world of credible gatekeepers, the gatekeepers themselves must commit to objective truth.
Well I don't entirely disagree. I could do a little more social work here and distinguish knowledge (the social product of human work) from truth or falsity as properties of statements. The dictionary definition of knowledge ('justified true belief') may offer some help here, where our beliefs can be true or false, but without our having justification for which is which. I may have a true belief but not 'know' it or be able to demonstrate it to someone else, because I failed to produce an adequate justification for my belief.
As for objective truth and objective reality, putting epistemological relativism aside (merely for brevity), your suggestion that "To return to a world of credible gatekeepers, the gatekeepers themselves must commit to objective truth", is not ideologically neutral (where ideology signifies a collective 'motivating' interest or belief). Objectivity is an assumption to begin with, producing examples of it involves a commitment to sustained coordination and consensus. In other words, objective truth and objective reality as objectives of human work are beliefs that typically need to be shared in order to be realized and acted upon as knowledge.
The essential point being, the production of truth (knowledge) can not be separated from collective human motivation (ideology).
In more mundane terms, if I can get what I want by lying (disinformation), why tell the truth? In other words, truth as a social production needs a motivating objective. In war, it is generally presumed to be efficacious to lie to one's enemies to gain advantage. If a society is at war, there's likely little consensus about what counts as objective truth and reality. Thus the lack of consensus, even concerning objective reality, may be evidence of a society fiercely at war with itself.
Even if we assume a debate where everyone agrees that 'objective reality' exists and it's what we need to 'discover' or 'identify' to act in concert, that process of discovery remains a social process. Unless you believe in a completely individualistic intuitive apprehension of objective realities (godly bolts of lightning), social work amongst groups of people needs to take place for those discoveries to occur. And what counts as a justified true belief requires the social work of producing a consensus about any shared reality.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/#KnowJustTrueBeli
I agree, and you raise an interesting point. We all know that the idea of the possibility or existence of objective truth is under attack in the academy. And we all know that "experts" have jettisoned truth over the past two years in many respects (efficacy of lockdowns and cloth masks, natural immunity, COVID risk to kids, to name the least controversial). But were those experts in fact lying?
In other words, were they intentionally lying in order to defeat their "enemies", and get the public to obey them? Or did they simply, following academia, not believe in the possibility of truth at all, so that utterances have no purpose other getting people to do what you want?
In any event, I completely agree that the discovery of truth is generally a social process. In fact, I strongly believe that the social atomization caused by lockdowns directly impaired our ability to discover truth (or produce knowledge, much the same thing) - without dinner parties, we know nothing.
And I am fully aware that I am calling for (but, sadly, not expecting) a change in the ideology of gatekeepers.
"We all know...". No we do not. Let's start with your subjective, not objective, reality. The gatekeepers will never live up to your expectations. Quibbling about the words used for your objective reality is a waste of time, tho I thoroughly enjoyed Robert's response to you.
Don't read this article! It's merely on the internet, not a gatekept media source! You might do a misinformation!
Ah! The irony!
Edit: Oh wait! Is Jen Gerson the gatekeeper now? I am confused.
Would a "ferret hole" be the one you go down to find rabbit-hunters? This is written, not video, bu is the best takedown of crypto myths I've seen so far:
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2022/05/why-this-computer-scientist-says-all-cryptocurrency-should-die-in-a-fire
It doesn't matter whether it's video, or cable TV news that repeats and repeats and repeats the same hyped-up story (45 pieces on the "New Black Panthers"; heard of them, lately?), or the "9/11 Truther" text web sites that existed years before YouTube was invented. You either keep reinforcing the same story in your head, or you go *looking* for countervailing information, see if it holds up. "Science" is what it is, because it goes looking for contradictions.
In a nod to the right wing, let me recommend Jonathan Kay's "Among the Truthers", a whole book on conspiracy theorists. They have clear markers, and Poiliviere doesn't match. He's cynically using conspiracy theories for electoral purposes, but I don't think he believes them.
In short, a ruthless liar, not an idiot.
And that’s the tragedy, isn’t it? When I watch him give a speech or an interview, I am struck by his demeanour. I think he is just enjoying playing people. Way back, I was a teacher. He reminds me of the Grade 3s. That’s about the age when kids figure out that they have free agency and many really spend a lot of time testing that. I think that image, for me, is here to stay. Conservative supporters deserve better.
Over the years I have enjoyed Andrew's writing, even when his role as a pr flak for Harper had me shouting at my computer. His stances have moderated recently to where I often find myself in agreement with his columns.
Given Andrew MacDougall's political provenance, does this critical piece suggest that Harperites are backing away from former cabinet minister PP as a viable leader?
Who would know him better?
Trust. We've had our trust in institutions betrayed again and again, so we reach for something that we feel we can trust, knowing the risk we take. Sure there's lots of trash on YouTube, but there's plenty of trash on every newsstand. We just need to be mindful of what we're consuming, and assume there's a spectrum of truth in everything.
Bitcoin is interesting tech, and agreed, it's not a viable investment or stable medium of exchange, but how bad has our trust in modern currencies gotten to make it even remotely trustworthy?
Why, in every leadership election, the CPC winds up shooting itself in the foot? The purpose of a political party is to win elections. It has no other purpose. Choosing a leader who promotes air-supported "fintech" just before the air was sucked out of the balloon is setting the CPC for yet another pratfall in 2025, or whenever even Trudeau has had his fill of Singh.
I am uninspired by all the leadership candidates. 4 more years of Trudeau... sigh.
I still dream the Liberals will recognise Trudeau as the liability that he is and dump him before 2025. He's all that's holding them back from a majority.
He'll likely be gone for the next election.
Trudeau's career is the embodiment of the opposing spring principle. Better than anyone else he can find the middle way.
Or, he's the guy who takes a barrage of tough hits but ends up putting buddy permanently on the mat by the third round.
Really? Trudeau can't grasp issues well enough to find a middle way. His opinion on cryptocurrencies' resilience to inflation would be that he will always support a woman's right to choose.
Vote NDP :)
I have in the past, but not with Jaggy at the helm.
And we will all go along doing what we always have and we vote Lib or Con. And then we are all happy or sad/mad depending on who we gave our vote to. Then the NDP, the Greens, Max's PPC (soooo unoriginal but that's Max) and the tiny little parties all promise themselves they will do better next time. And nothing really changes.
Just imagine what it would be like if the NDP or the Greens (not Max) actually formed government. Government is not nimble so in one term nothing too dreadful would happen and as they really aren't in entitlement mode some good things could come about. Nothing worse than the usuals would do and boy, that would be a wake up call on them wouldn't it?
I didn't care for Jagmeet early days but now I am more impressed.
Until Martin had the electoral boundaries changed here for the 06 election, l would vote for the NDP candidate. He was the incumbent and l voted for him as the man, not the party, per se. We did make the mistake of giving the Provincial NDP the reins of power, once. It was a mistake and not repeated thank god, as the experience was unpleasant. I do like some of the dipper platforms but after Justin has spent our great grandchildren into poverty the past couple of years, we can't afford a Jaggy dog pile on top of. But yes you're right, we'll probably keep up with the LPC/CPC merry-go-round.
Are you up early or am I up late?
I remember when Rae was NDP Premier. What were his/party's big mistakes? The recession was everywhere, Rae didn't start it tho he has been accused of it. We were watching the Socreds implode in '90. (Yay!)
I also remember Mike Harris' Common Sense Revolution (ha). I also hear that Harris is raking it in from LTC.
But what boggles is the Ford brothers.
I suppose it's a matter of being careful what you wish for, you just might get it. And that applies both fed and provincial.
It's all so bloody boring.
Damn, birds are tweeting. Now I'm up early.