What is Wrong With The Internet ?

Yes, I know we could write a book, but essentially what is wrong with the Internet is the way we use it.

The public changed has the way it uses the Internet to the benefit of a few monopoly tech companies and those that want to spread disinformation because laziness has caused them to succumb to the cult of convenience.

We will skip the very early days before the World Wide Web and corporations being allowed on to the Internet and jump to the Internet/Web being broadly adopted by the public and accessed via computers.

In those days websites operated by organizations, institutions, media, businesses and even individuals were how we accessed the web. Phone apps did not exist.

We used search engines (Alta Vista was my preference) to find websites that we trusted to proved us with information. And we judged that information by how much we trusted the sources, seeking medical information from places like Health Canada or the Mayo Clinic and our news from reputable news media that we trusted offline.

We also used the World Wide Web for creating communities via online forums for specific subject interests like photography or mountain biking. All without being beholden to one predatory corporation for everything we did online.

We did not simply type a question into Google and believe the first response it provided without even paying attention to the source as many do today, and was the start of the decline of the reliability of the Internet (due to our choices). And this was before Google started selling search rankings and site operators started using Search Engine Optimization (SEO) techniques to artificially raise their rankings.

Perhaps the biggest thing wrong with the Internet is users not paying attention to the actual source of the information they find there.

The next thing that went wrong was users abandoning the Open Internet for the convenience of one proprietary source designed to sell advertising and drive traffic to that advertising. That, of course, was/is Facebook and it only became worse when it became a phone app and now a huge percentage of users never use the Open Internet at all and just use Facebook because it is so easy and all that they need and it is so easy and they do not care about all the well documented problems with and evils of Facebook because it is so easy. The cult of convenience trumps everything. And of course people believe Facebook is free.

This is not to say there are not a lot of good things like community resources and voluntary organizations available through Facebook. The thing is before Facebook all these resources were available on the Open Web. Unfortunately those of us who will not engage with the evil that is Facebook no longer have access to many of these resources that are now only available on Facebook because so many have decided that Facebook is absolutely necessary and irreplaceable. For many Facebook and other related phone “apps” have replaced the Open Internet.

I was going to link to articles on the evils of Facebook and how it is not free but that information is readily available and being added to regularly so we will let people use the Open Internet to do their own research, preferably not via Google. We suggest DuckDuckGo.

If only Facebook was the greatest evil online.

I once had the naive view that the Internet would be an effective tool against the promotion of hate and bigotry. In the “old days” the racists and bigots used to recruit directly from disaffected groups, youths with no hope for the future, recently laid off workers, etc., by befriending them and providing them a community where they would teach them their hate and bigotry. These were closed communities that sheltered members from other points of view.

When recruiting moved online I thought that the easy access to the truth would be an effective counterbalance.

Unfortunately they have created their own closed communities online in dark places like Eight Chan and Q’Anon fuelled by disinformation sites like InfoWars and Rebel News and now BrandX, formerly Twitter, along with certain places on YouTube.

Their followers shy away from the mainstream media, they shy away from science, they shy away from any authoritative information sources. These are people who believe stories like PizzaGate.

I just wrote “perhaps the biggest thing wrong with the Internet is users not paying attention to the actual source of the information they find there”. But that may not be true. Perhaps the biggest thing wrong with the Internet is users limiting their use of the Internet, with its broad access to knowledge, to just sources that reflect back to them their own world view, a world view often based on wilful ignorance and disinformation and actual real fake news.

I have not yet touched on what the cult of convenience has done to online shopping. My first experience with online shopping was using the Internet to check product features and specifications on manufacturer’s websites while purchasing locally. I moved on to the convenience of purchasing online with free shipping, but for the most part sticking to stores with local retail outlets.

However, for many, the inconvenience of shopping around has become too much work and they have decided buying everything from one predatory monopolistic outlet is best for them. The cult of convenience wins again.

However I find Amazon’s business model to be as abhorrent as Facebook’s and I will never buy anything from them unless I absolutely need it and I absolutely cannot get it anyplace else.

There are wonderful information sources on the Open Internet and every day I learn of something new that I don’t always have enough time to check out. It is sad so many people want to hide away in dark places avoiding the light the Internet can bring to them.

How Did We Get Here

Let me tell you a story about my early days working for the House of Commons in a non-partisan position serving all Members of Parliament and all Canadians. While we all had our own political opinions, that ranged from right to left, we all worked professionally and in a non- partisan manner to serve the House. And we all got along.

On one particular day we were on what could best be called a self-improvement course. I suppose there was money left in the professional development budget and somebody knew somebody, but that is a different discussion. This course veered into a particular direction that was critical of social programs and public health care suggesting they enabled the lazy. Many of us expressed our opposition to these seemingly American inspired ideas during the seminar. During our first break I was discussing this with a colleague, who happened to be the most right wing member of our staff from conservative Alberta, and I, from NDP stronghold Sudbury, was the most left wing staff member, and we both agreed the seminar was a waste of time and we both decided to go back to our desks and do real work for the rest of the seminar.

The point being that while we had different political outlooks we shared the same Canadian values that all our colleagues did.

There was a time, not really that long ago in the political history of our country, when people on the left respected, and even admired, right wing politicians like John Diefenbaker, Bill Davis, Flora MacDonald and Joe Clark and people on the right felt the same way about politicians like Tommy Douglas, Stanley Knowles and Ed Broadbent. There was a time when we held two Quebec referendums and national debates on Quebec separation in a respectful manner without the level of hatred that is expressed today. This was a time when Canadians had their party preferences but did not fear for their country if their favoured party lost.

I can think of a particular American multi-millionaire and another American billionaire that can share some of the blame for what is happening in Canada today. But the blame also lies with too many of us who have decided to use our ability to control the information we receive to only see what we have already chosen to believe and only listen to those we have chosen to listen to. Unfortunately this leaves too many people in a position to easily fall prey to disinformation and manipulation. But that still does not explain the level of real hatred we see expressed in our political discourse today, particularly against the current Prime Minister for everything from policy decisions to the colour of socks he might choose to wear.

How did we get here.

Postscript

It is blatantly obvious that the vast majority of the political hate (and bigotry) we are seeing today is coming from one end of the political spectrum. It is time for the centre right decide who their values better align with, the far right or the centre, and a time for them to decide who and what they want to be aligned with.

Much Ado About Truckers and Building a Canadian White Supremacist Fascist Movement

So what is going on with the truckers. They are calling it a protest. But it is not like any protest I have ever been involved in.

Protests are designed to attempt to make change. While they may be aimed at getting governments to change their policies, gaining public support to pressure government is always an aim of legitimate protests. To get the public’s attention of course you need to get he media’s attention and that usually is done by means of a large protest or some form of disruption.

The truckers are in an excellent position to do that. Large transport trucks take up a lot of space, one truck can taker the space of 100 marching protesters, so they can easily make a protest appear to be larger than it actually is. And trucks can be disruptive. You want attention, block the streets and clog traffic. So do that for a day or weekend and you have the media’s attention and you can get your point across.

Of course the truckers argument against the government protecting the health of it’s citizens is a hard sell to the general public.

So while you might need some disruption to get peoples attention you do not want to alienate the public whose support you are trying to gain.

So blasting neighbourhoods with noise, shitting on peoples lawns, attacking them as they go about their daily business and otherwise harassing and terrorizing them is not what a protest is about. Neither is openly displaying signs and symbols of hate a tactic used to gain the general public’s support. That is aimed at a much smaller target audience.

So what is going on. This is clearly not aimed at gaining public support. Nobody thinks they are that stupid. Something else is going on here.

We have bullies using tactics that appeal to other bullies. I believe it is clear that this is a recruiting move aimed at the worst elements of our society, bringing them together to form some sort of comradeship and solidarity. And one cannot discount the usefulness of this as a dry run for something even more nefarious than terrorizing citizens, but a rehearsal for actual insurrection.

Any actual truckers involved are just being duped and used as pawns in something very dangerous. What we are seeing is just one component of the building of a white supremacist fascist movement in Canada aimed at destroying the very fabric of our society.

America The Ugly

With friends like this Romney doesn't need enemies:

It's enough to make an atheist want to believe in god so we can call on him to save us from them, but as they tell us, and so fervently believe, he is on their side, their vengeful hateful god.

I Hate Hate But I Love Freedom of Speech

This is the challenge facing many Canadians. It involves getting our priorities right. But it is not as difficult a challenge as it seems. Once one realizes that the best way to fight hate is with free speech the choice becomes obvious.

Freedom of thought is the freedom to be who you are, and freedom of thought is meaningless if you cannot express your thoughts, Freedom of expression is the freedom to be yourself. And if you are a bigot or a racist, all the better that others know it. Hate is most effective and at its evilest when it is underground.

This issue was recently addressed by University of Windsor professor Richard Moon in his report on Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The CBC reports:

"My principal recommendation, in the end, has been for the repeal of Section 13," Moon told CBC News on Monday. "That does not mean that we no longer have hate speech regulation. What it means is that the Criminal Code of Canada, which has a ban on the wilful promotion of hatred, would be the recourse."

In his report, which was made public Monday, Moon also suggests that the application of the Criminal Code provision should also be limited. He says it should only be applied in cases where the speech "explicitly or implicitly threatens, justifies or advocates violence against the members of an identifiable group."

The report, indeed, recommends that only “speech” that advocates harm would be illegal and it would have to be proven “beyond a reasonable doubt” in a court of law.

This is a Canadian compromise that may not go as far as United States First Amendment Rights but balances the rights of those who want to exercise their free speech with the rights of those that may be harmed by it.

It's Beginning to Look a Lot Like Christmas

Peace On Earth



Burn A Cross For Jesus



Gotta Love Those Christians

Debunking E-mail Bigotry: Immigration

I usually ignore and delete any of the hate e-mails I receive but I decided to comment on this one because:

1. It was sent to us by someone we know that thought we would appreciate it.

2. It claimed to come from the Royal Canadian Legion.

3. It was inspired by disturbing remarks by a 2010 Olympics ceremonies committee official, and

4. It was such an easy target that it would be fun to tear it apart.

First I would like to make it clear that this e-mail does not originate from the Royal Canadian Legion. I received the following response from the Legion when I enquired about this e-mail:

The Royal Canadian Legion has identified this as a bogus e-mail which has not been sanctioned. The logo in use on it has been out of date since 2001. Notification of this has been posted to all branches via elegion and on the bulletin board at www.legion.ca. While we would like to catch the person who started this e-mail this is proving impossible. Please send this on to the people that sent you the bogus message so that they too will know that this message is bogus.

The e-mail stated:

Bruce Allen not out of hot water yet.

VANCOUVER/CKNW(AM980) - Despite being given a show of support by Vancouver 2010 organizers, embattled music manager and CKNW editorialist, Bruce Allen is not out of hot water just yet as the fallout continues from his recent commentary indicating immigrants to Canada should 'fit in,' or 'go home.'

Richmond Liberal MP, Raymond Chan, is set to file an official complaint with the CRTC (Canadian Radio & Television Commission) about Allen's recent 'reality check' alleging the piece was discriminatory. Chan is also demanding an official apology and a retraction of the comments.

It's time we all get behind Bruce Allen, and scrap this Political Correctness business. His comments were anything but racist, but there are far too many overly-sensitive 'New Canadians' that are trying to change everything we hold dear.

So what did Mr. Allen say:

In his regular Reality Check radio comment on CKNW Sept. 13, Allen stated "special interest groups" expect rules for themselves.

"There is the door. If you don't like the rules, hit it," said Allen. "We don't need you here. You have another place to go. It's called home. See ya."

Added Allen: "This is simple. We have laws in this country. They are spelled out and easy to get a hold of. If you're immigrating here and you don't like the rules in place, you have the right to choose not to live here. If you choose to come to Canada, shut up and fit in. We are a democracy, but it seems more and more that we are being pilloried by special interest groups that want special rules for themselves."

His idea of democracy does not seem to include immigrants. So, according to Mr. Allen, we should all be living by aboriginal tribal laws with no special rules for those nasty European immigrants and they certainly should not have criticized anything or changed any of the rules that were in place when they first came here.

In fact there is only one class of Canadian citizen, whether Canadian born or naturalized citizen. We all have the same rights to express our opinions and the same democratic right to participate in the law-making process.

The e-mail continued:

For example, our National Anthem: Don't know what your opinions are, but I certainly agree. --- I'm sorry, but after hearing they want to sing the National Anthem in Hindi - enough is enough. Nowhere or at no other time in our nation's history, did they sing it in Italian, Japanese, Polish, Irish (Celtic), German, Portuguese, Greek, or any other language because of immigration. It was written in English, and should be sung word for word the way it was written. The news broadcasts even gave the translation -- not even close.

Well first of all the national anthem was NOT written in English. It was written in French. So Mr. Allen and his supporters better start singing it in French if they believe it should be sung “ word for word the way it was written”. And it has also been sung in many different languages on many occasions, a testament to the love of Canada exhibited by the various immigrant groups in wanting to sing their new national anthem in their mother tongue.

And the misinformed bigotry continued:

I am not sorry if this offends anyone, this is MY COUNTRY - IF IT IS YOUR COUNTRY SPEAK UP ---- please pass this along.... I am not against immigration .. just come through like everyone else... Get a sponsor; get a place to lay your head; get a job; pay your taxes; live by the rules ...AND... LEARN THE LANGUAGE

as all other immigrants have in the past.

Another lie, or perhaps just a “misunderstanding of Canadian history”. I would venture to state that very few immigrants, except perhaps for the early explorers, have learned to speak or write, Cree or Ojibway or any other of Canada’s non-immigrant languages.

And the hate message concluded:

and LONG LIVE CANADA!

PART OF THE PROBLEM? Think about this: If you don't want to forward this for fear of offending someone-----YOU'RE PART OF THE PROBLEM !!!!

Will we still be the and still be CANADA if we continue to make the changes forced on us by the people from other countries who have come to live in CANADA because it is the Country of Choice??????

Think about it! IMMIGRANTS, NOT CANADIAN'S, MUST ADAPT. It is Time for CANADA to Speak up. If you agree - pass This along.

Obviously, I do not agree with this hate. Canada is a country of immigrants that brought with them the cultures and languages of the world to create a multicultural country that is the envy of the world. It is the immigrants that came here and learned from our First Nations and added their cultures to Canada that have made this country what it is - “the Country of Choice”.

It is Mr. Allen, and those that think like him, that are “the problem”.

Hate and Freedom of Thought

We all hate hate, but does that justify compromising our most fundamental of freedoms.

René Descartes postulated “I think therefore I am”, reasoning that thought is the very essence of our being.

Freedom of thought is guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which states:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.

Freedom of thought is meaningless without the freedom to express one thoughts, thus freedom of thought and expression are interlinked in one statement in The Charter.

Popular ideas do not need protection. The very point of protecting freedom of expression in the constitution is to protect the expression of unpopular ideas. After all today’s heresy may be tomorrow’s science, as history has taught us. And it is those that espouse hate that would love to control what other people think and say. We know better.

The irony of combating hate with restrictions on freedom of thought and expression is that it is these very freedoms that are the best protection against hate. The very worst expressions of hate are those that are institutionalized by governments or corporate media. The best defence against such hate is the freedom of ordinary people to challenge it with logic and reason, without restriction on their freedom of expression.

Take, for example, government censorship and control of information and mandatory versions of history. The truth does not require being made “mandatory” or “official”. It can stand on it’s own. Such mandatory versions of history are virtually always false (with one unfortunate exception which is a subject the Fifth Column will examine separately in the future) and often used to promote hatred by authoritarian regimes.

Government restrictions on freedom of expression to fight hatred can also have perverse effects. Should we make it illegal to insult religion in order to combat hatred on the basis of religion. That is actually not such a huge leap of reason and we have seen what can happen when that leap is taken.

Much has been made of the use of the Internet to disseminate hate but the Internet is the best thing that could happen to the spread of hate. The old way was a lot more work for the hate mongers but a lot more effective. They would target susceptible individuals, often alienated or disaffected youth, and would then befriend them and provide them with an onslaught of controlled information via pamphlets and meetings and oratory. They would only see one side of the picture and this would all be done out of public scrutiny.

With the Internet we all can see the message of hate they are spewing and, more importantly, the target audience using the Internet to access hate messages has unfettered access to all of the counteracting anti-hate information on the web. More often than not the hate mongers will simply end up preaching to the converted, something us bloggers understand all too well.

The only restriction that should be put on freedom of expression is against promoting or counseling others to commit illegal acts that involve violence or cause harm to others and that is where the reasonable limits provision of the Charter comes into play:

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Freedom of expression is too precious to compromise, even with the best of intentions, for the best of intentions can go awry. Allowing the government to decide what are acceptable thoughts for people to express is a very dangerous idea.

We must not let the hate mongers intimidate us into compromising our fundamental freedoms but instead we must take the attitude of Voltaire who wrote: “I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write”.