Every time I hear the name 'Mulroney' I think of this. 

"Page Not Found"
Thanks.The "boooo" part accidentally got added to the end of the URL, which is what caused the link not to work. I've fixed that, so the link should now give you the intended article.
It's more to do with Australia than it is with us, but I guess it's tangentially relevant because Meta has pulled the same kind of garbage with us after the federal government passed the Online News Act, by banning news on their platform for Canadian users. At the time, I thought I remember pundits saying that Meta should be able to come to an agreement here, because they did in Australia when they passed a similar piece of legislation. Turns out they're going to instead take their Canadian tactics and impose them on Australia.
The same can be said of numerous PMs who you don't ordinarily think of having done anything of great consequence. Paul Martin, for instance. The same-sex marriage law was brought in during his mandate.No matter one’s opinion of Mulroney, he was among the most consequential prime ministers in Canadian history. His legacy is, at best, mixed (the good/bad ratio is, of course, variable across the country). He’s currently getting the “soft treatment” nearly all deceased leaders get in the immediate aftermath of their demise but it won’t last too long. It will be maintained for a while as he looks good relative to Poilievre (sp?) but, on balance, while he’ll always rank as consequential, I’d wager he’ll not be ranked in a top five list all time. As for a state funeral, pretty standard fare for a PM who served as long as he did.
I posted this in the wrong thread, it should been posted in the down under thread, but thankfully it appears there is a connection between the two countries, otherwise this would be awkwardThe "boooo" part accidentally got added to the end of the URL, which is what caused the link not to work. I've fixed that, so the link should now give you the intended article.
It's more to do with Australia than it is with us, but I guess it's tangentially relevant because Meta has pulled the same kind of garbage with us after the federal government passed the Online News Act, by banning news on their platform for Canadian users. At the time, I thought I remember pundits saying that Meta should be able to come to an agreement here, because they did in Australia when they passed a similar piece of legislation. Turns out they're going to instead take their Canadian tactics and impose them on Australia.
It's more to do with Australia than it is with us, but I guess it's tangentially relevant because Meta has pulled the same kind of garbage with us after the federal government passed the Online News Act, by banning news on their platform for Canadian users. At the time, I thought I remember pundits saying that Meta should be able to come to an agreement here, because they did in Australia when they passed a similar piece of legislation. Turns out they're going to instead take their Canadian tactics and impose them on Australia.
Here's a good article about Meta and the Online News Act and how it's been affecting the media. Smaller organizations, such as Village Media are absolutely feeling the effects of Meta's decisions. Some smaller organizations didn't have websites perse, but relied on Facebook to be their hub. It's not hard to see how Facebook would have been a good way of garnering traffic in an increasingly 'social' landscape. But Meta had to be bullish about it.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/feat...berg-and-trudeau-batters-canada-media-outlets
Anyway, America wants to do something similar. They want to pass KOSA which is going to be a problem for a lot of people
We just introduced our own Online Harms Act into Parliament last week. Although there are some provisions specifically about children, it’s also intended to tackle online hate more generally.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberals-table-online-harms-legislation-1.7126080
Of course, Republicans being Republicans, the GOP co-sponsor of KOSA has indicated that part of its intent is to “protect” children from certain racial and LGBTQ+ content, which certainly wouldn’t be the case for the Liberals’ OHA. The challenge will be to make sure it is worded in such a way so that the Conservatives couldn’t twist it to that kind of meaning when/if they form government at some point in the future.
As @Fantasy Lover mentioned, it looks like you need to register to read this. But don’t worry, I’m no fan of Meta even from before this, and you don’t need to convince me that they’re awful.![]()
He'll need a majority to attempt to reverse those programmes. Despite current polling, I'm not sure he can pick one up. Just a completely unscientific, gut feeling, but I think if the Conservatives win at all, it'll be a minority--not sure the country is willing to give Pierre full reins just yet.I wonder anyone has pointed out the pierre pissant about what his conservative brethren in the U.S are doing given he trottted out the "censorship" line in relation to the online harm bill, just as he did about the bill to make scumbook & co pay for the media content they distribute.
Oh and he also claims the natioanl pharmacare plan is a waste of time so people better not become too attached to it (same for those moving on the new dental care program).
He'll need a majority to attempt to reverse those programmes. Despite current polling, I'm not sure he can pick one up. Just a completely unscientific, gut feeling, but I think if the Conservatives win at all, it'll be a minority--not sure the country is willing to give Pierre full reins just yet.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.