Canadian Facebook Got Better

Recently the Canadian Government passed a law requiring large tech firms like Meta and Google to negotiate deals with news providers for their content. The argument was since these large corporations that are pretty darn good at what they do, demand the lion's share of advertising dollars, they should be paying to use content that has been traditionally funded by these advertising dollars. To a simpleton, this looks like a good idea. The politicians who brought forward the law did not expect what happened next.

Meta and Google stopped allowing Canadian news on their platforms.

These companies are not public utilities. They did not require a charter to operate in Canada and they are free to manage their organization as they see fit.

News was not a big part of their platform traffic. However, it could be argued it was the most annoying part of their platform. Articles would get shared. Since most news agencies don't really give us the news anymore but in fact are trying to tell us how to think, inane arguments would break out that would solve nothing. The public discourse would not be for the greater good and it all would help feed the unreasonable tribalism that is growing in Canada.

If you think about what Facebook was when it changed the internet forever. It was a place for people to share their life and connect with people they knew. It exploded because you could keep people in your life that were not in your close proximity. That isn't what Facebook is today. Most people don't share original content. In fact most don't share any content but if they do, it is something that resonates with them but was created by someone else. I think it was inevitable that we would get to this place. Most people are not very good at expressing themselves.

Since the news has disappeared from Facebook in Canada I have found it to be a better online platform. I'm seeing more from people I know. I'm not sure if they are sharing more or if what they are sharing is cutting through the noise but it really doesn't matter. No longer are people posting news articles trying to bait others into arguments. With news out of the way, I'm more likely to be shown content that I want to consume. I know the algorithm looks at everything I do and tries to find me things I'll read but for a long time a lot of it wasn't worth reading. Too much news, not enough fun. Now there is more fun.

Facebook can still be a huge time suck. There are better things to do with my time than scroll on social media. However, I like to be connected and have a bit of a finger on the pulse. Because there is no editorial standard you encounter a lot of garbage but you also encounter some very raw truths. You end up seeing some of the best of people and of course you see the bad in people as well.

The Canadian Government inadvertently made Facebook better and over time I think that more and more Canadian will not want to go back to what it was.

Too Bad We Can't Be Libertarian

For a long time when people ask me how I want the world to be run, I tell them that I want the government to stay out of my affairs, both business and personally. Liberals want to regulate how you do business but will give you a lot of personal freedom. Conservatives will tell you how you should behave but will let you conduct your business affairs with few checks and balances. A Libertarian wants to stay out of both.


I have come to realize that although I could function quite well in that system, most people could not, and we would end up with more problems that we would fix.


I like to see the best in people but I'm starting to think that most people need some help from the government. In the western world, our political spectrum is really about how we help and what we let go.


If I have learned anything from the current US Presidential Election is that a lot of people would not survive without some help.


No thoughtful person with a basic education should even consider voting for Donald Trump.


Don't get me wrong, I'm not a big fan of Hillary Clinton. No matter how much the media paints her to be the best in the land to lead the land, I don't see it. I don't question her experience. I don't question her drive. Even though she had the right answers during the first debate, she really didn't show she could control the room and drive the conversation. The best leaders are the ones who don't need the title to be seen as a leader and I don't get that feeling from her.


However, despite my reservations, she is light-years ahead of Donald J Trump, except in the polls. The fact that she is not going to beat him with a ratio of 9:1 makes me believe that Libertarianism won't work.


Too many people are not responsible enough to do the research and make sound decisions so we can leave everyone up to their own devices. To many people would cause too much harm to themselves or others that society would crumble. Too many people cannot be trusted to do what's just and right to get rid if most of the rules.


I'm not talking about criminal acts. We have to keep adding consumer protection laws because too many people blindly make decisions without knowing the consequences of these decisions. People are expecting to be told every detail instead of doing some research for themselves. When something goes wrong, people are distraught instead of adapting and overcoming. I honestly think it's easier to be exceptional today than it was 20 years ago. This is not an environment where a Libertarian ethos can be effective.


So, as much as I want as little governmental regulation over any of my affairs, I understand that for the greater good, they need to step in and build a structure around protecting the weakest, because the weakest makes up a much greater percentage of the population than anyone wants to admit. The level of support received by Donald Trump more than proves this.

Butt Out

I've been dwelling on this for a while. An increase to locations where smoking is prohibited is on its way to Ottawa. Soon you will not be able to smoke on patios, beaches, parks, and at festivals on city land. As usual there is backlash from people who choose to smoke. Why wouldn't there be? This change is further limiting their ability to smoke.

The social acceptability of smoking has been decreasing over the last several years. I would be surprised if there were five people who worked on the same floor I do that smoke. With the significant cost and damage to personal health, I don't understand why anyone would even want to smoke.

There is the argument that I always hear about it being an individual's body and they can do whatever they want. The free will side of me agrees if you want to degrade their quality of life, why should I care. Well, in a nation that has universally accessible health care, there is a cost to all taxpayers for everyone who smokes. There are not a lot of people requiring long term medical care, in or out of hospitals because they have been exercising too much. On the other hand, there are a lot of people who use costly treatment and management of smoking related illnesses including lung cancer, emphysema, COPD, and heart disease, just to name a few. So, we all pay for that. The government wouldn't need all those tax dollars they collect from cigarette sales if they didn't need to expend them on smoking related diseases.

There are really only a couple of things that detract from my daily walk to and from work. One is freezing rain, the other is tobacco smoke. It's quite prevalent. It only takes one person upwind of you to foul your time. It happens every time I walk. I accept it. Overall, the benefits of walking far outshines the brief moments I have to endure second hand smoke but it is always there.

It's unfortunate that people choose to smoke. It always starts out as a choice. At some point many develop a physical addiction, then they are trapped until they can build a lot of willpower to quit. Making smoking less accessible will only help motivate someone to quit. Hopefully many people will take that step and start leading a better life.