The thing is that Canada wouldn't function as a collection of countries. None of the regions are sufficiently developed for that to work. It'd be like trying to segment Russia

Worse actually, since Russia vastly outnumbers us

Also the US system worked pretty well when it operated as designed tbh

and now there's Calexit and Texit

Neither of which will actually happen

😄

no, no without a lot of quarrel and bitching, just like the fall of USSR

"Russia vastly outnumbers us" ... You say that like russians were holding a knife to your throat 😄

Not even due to that
It's because ultimately the states do benefit from being part of a union, the issue is that the power was supposed to be mostly held by the states and it was slowly consolidated

No I say it like underpopulated areas in the USSR are not country material as it stands, and they have nearly 5* Canada's population

_"ultimately the states do benefit from being part of a union"_ ... Well hey, i'm norwegian, and we've learned to stay out of unions..

_"[calexit/texit] Neither of which will actually happen"_ ... the sooner the better my friend... 🍺
https://youtu.be/ieQH6X_XBJo

https://youtu.be/5WBJsYJwHdQ

Is the claim that this is a false claim or that Canada is about to start producing state-funded propaganda?

The notion of the government funding news isn't new. But it is always bothersome. And the idea Trudeau would be in charge of selecting the people in control goes along with that.

It's a genuine claim

Canada is about to have 0 trusted news sources

I think the real turning point will be when they silence Rebel Media. They'll be totalitarian if they silence the National Post.

For the Americans, that's like banning Breitbart and killing Fox.

Still bothersome to have the government handing out money like that and getting control over how the money is spent (effectively bribing the press for good coverage).

Serious question, what matters most when determining trustworthiness...the messenger, or the messenge?

The message

@caykoh

How do you figure so? I'm doing some research as I am writing a paper on the topic

So two separate people bring to you one message each. One of them is a studied and acknowledged academic, the other is a convicted pedophile and the head of multiple ponzi schemes.

Both messages state "clean water is transparent". Which one of them is more trustworthy?

@caykoh Oh just saw this couldve pinged me

Wrong people can be right

Also the message is more important as it is what is being said compared to who said it

It does not prove it wrong for it being said by someone it is less credible based on someone previous faults and contradictions that is and should be took with a grain of salt

Sorry im tired

Ah, well, I presume a cursory assessment of both would favor the academic dude, but just a bit. Imagine if his message included a simple "h2o" mention, and the pedo didnt. However, if their message is both verbatim, extracting any character components to rely on them for trustworthiness isnt possible and k have to rely in the message . Thus , both are equal trustworthy claims of water bein g clear

@caykoh Just because someone is more studied doesnt make them right

Ultimately its whats said

I agree. So here's what really gives me friction...

If the entity issuing the message can be accurate, and thust trustworthy, regardless of its reputation or current standing, as long as the message in question maps onto the facts and data

Can the term fake news actually even exist in our vernacular?

As be im ng attributeed to the entity

Being *

If something contradicts itself or misleads it should considered less credible

Fake news story, or fake news article, I assume would be the good faith substitute

Ah glad you mention that. So...