There may be something strange happening in Canadian political social media. But “it looks suspicious” and “we can prove who’s paying for it” are two very different things.
I agree. While I despise PP & all he stands for, we must not engage in propaganda & outright lies to support our platform or attack theirs. There may or may not be bots, but until there's proof it's all conjecture. PP will sabotage himself eventually even more than he has already. I will celebrate the day he's no longer the opposition leader, although as long as he is, it makes the Liberals job much easier.
All fair statements Fred, and you're correct in pointing out that unproven rumours should be verified before being presented or spun into what passes as factual.
Speaking of P.P.... I wish he would say something constructive just once in a while. Canada is still under attack and his verbal diarrhea trying to score political points at this stage is just unhelpful and disruptive.
and a bit to some of the other replies here -- Poilievre's status likely isn't "benefiting" from any of this "help" (bot or otherwise) ;-)
What decides this is the prime source -- what did HE say about whatever. Then, we just have to determine if that comment (usually in a video clip these days) is authentic and not deepfaked. So, I don't look at the clip that whoever is quoting - I try to find the source of the clip. If it's coming from CBC, CTV, etc., etc. there are ways to determine if the interview was legitimate. Or a legitimate press conference that can be verified (I have no idea why he did the one this week about the Aug19 trade deal - he didn't have anything more than the rest of us, and really couldn't add anything to the conversation that wasn't obvious/meaningful).
But a whole army of posts saying "Pierre says the sky is falling" really is just noise, not something factual or real.
And yes, I do expect all kinds of "special interest groups" - American, Russian, Chinese, Bob's Laundromat, even Natalie Harp if she thinks posting something would impress Trump (okay, feeble attempt at humour here) - just saying that lots of people will post all kinds of things. Best thing is to filter out or analyze it to find the core message and then search for that.
THANK YOU. More folks who write (on any platform) need to use only verifiable FACTS, not conjecture. I have gotten so sick of conjecture showing up everywhere, represented as fact, that I only trust a very few sources out here on the internet. You're one of them, Fred.
I agree. While I despise PP & all he stands for, we must not engage in propaganda & outright lies to support our platform or attack theirs. There may or may not be bots, but until there's proof it's all conjecture. PP will sabotage himself eventually even more than he has already. I will celebrate the day he's no longer the opposition leader, although as long as he is, it makes the Liberals job much easier.
Jaymee, exactly. That’s the line I don’t want us crossing.
I can dislike what Poilievre says, challenge his record and call out political nonsense all day long...
but if I start repeating claims I can’t prove just because they hurt him, then I’ve become part of the same problem I’m complaining about.
There may be bots.
There may even be organized manipulation.
If somebody brings solid evidence, I’ll happily dig into it.
Until then, conjecture stays conjecture.
And I suspect you’re right about the last part too...
Pierre may be perfectly capable of doing more damage to Pierre than any of us ever could. 😁
Poor Skippy. Life has never been the same since that horrible peanut butter incident. 😂
He needs to get a real job. I’m thinking mall huckster selling As Seen on TV crap.
Len, I nearly made it through “Poor Skippy” with a straight face.
Then you opened the mall kiosk. 😂
But that’s actually why I wrote this one the way I did.
There’s plenty about Pierre’s politics we can criticize using things we can document.
We don’t need to put anything in the As Seen on TV aisle until somebody produces the receipts.
Although I admit, “But wait! There’s more!” does have a certain political familiarity to it. 😂
All fair statements Fred, and you're correct in pointing out that unproven rumours should be verified before being presented or spun into what passes as factual.
Speaking of P.P.... I wish he would say something constructive just once in a while. Canada is still under attack and his verbal diarrhea trying to score political points at this stage is just unhelpful and disruptive.
Well said, Fred,
and a bit to some of the other replies here -- Poilievre's status likely isn't "benefiting" from any of this "help" (bot or otherwise) ;-)
What decides this is the prime source -- what did HE say about whatever. Then, we just have to determine if that comment (usually in a video clip these days) is authentic and not deepfaked. So, I don't look at the clip that whoever is quoting - I try to find the source of the clip. If it's coming from CBC, CTV, etc., etc. there are ways to determine if the interview was legitimate. Or a legitimate press conference that can be verified (I have no idea why he did the one this week about the Aug19 trade deal - he didn't have anything more than the rest of us, and really couldn't add anything to the conversation that wasn't obvious/meaningful).
But a whole army of posts saying "Pierre says the sky is falling" really is just noise, not something factual or real.
And yes, I do expect all kinds of "special interest groups" - American, Russian, Chinese, Bob's Laundromat, even Natalie Harp if she thinks posting something would impress Trump (okay, feeble attempt at humour here) - just saying that lots of people will post all kinds of things. Best thing is to filter out or analyze it to find the core message and then search for that.
THANK YOU. More folks who write (on any platform) need to use only verifiable FACTS, not conjecture. I have gotten so sick of conjecture showing up everywhere, represented as fact, that I only trust a very few sources out here on the internet. You're one of them, Fred.