Fifteen years ago, I referenced a Nicholas Carr article in the Atlantic, “Is Google making us stupid”.

I couldn’t help but think of that article thanks to a number of social media interactions over the past few weeks. People were replying to me with various Tiktok videos that were just plain wrong.

Carr’s article in the Atlantic said that the web is able to deliver a lot of information to us very quickly. This was 15 years ago, remember. Unfortunately, in doing so it tends to encourage us to not look at the information very thoughtfully.

media are not just passive channels of information. They supply the stuff of thought, but they also shape the process of thought. And what the Net seems to be doing is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation. My mind now expects to take in information the way the Net distributes it: in a swiftly moving stream of particles. Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski.

Zipping along in a jet ski is a great metaphor for those 30 second TikTok videos that seem to be a major source of information for too many members of our society. I am more of the scuba diver kind of consumer of news. Superficial skimming through articles isn’t necessarily making us stupid, but I doubt it is making us any smarter. It’s like topsoil: pretty good on the surface, as long as you don’t dig very deep.

When the federal budget was released a few weeks ago, I downloaded it [pdf, 5.3MB] as soon as the Minister started speaking. I did a quick search for terms like “broadband”, “telecom”, and “internet” as I listened to her. Most Canadians have access to that same capability, but few would have bothered. I suspect many would consider the 400+ pages to be too intimidating. What I found was that the budget speech itself was misleading in claiming the government would remove costs of switching phone companies; these already don’t exist. The CRTC’s Wireless Code dealt with that in 2013. From this we see that even statements by senior government leaders require verification.

Legislation in the budget implementation bill appears to be based on misinformation that somehow reached the highest levels of government.

In the past, most people would have waited for their daily newspaper (or multiple newspapers) to be delivered the next morning to provide the details of what the various reporters thought were most important. Today, too many households go without home delivery of a newspaper. Many of us read the reports online, as they are posted (and updated).

Others listen to curated soundbites from their “go-to” political leaders. That isn’t necessarily a bad source, but I would recommend listening to political leaders of all stripes.

Since I was a kid, I have always read multiple newspapers. I grew up on the London Free Press, the Globe and Mail, and the Toronto Star. We would also get the Telegram until it shut down. Today, I subscribe to multiple news sites (at least 2 of which regularly infuriate me) and I access a bunch of other sites without subscriptions.

I don’t use Facebook or Instagram for news; there tends to be too much garbage to filter out on those sites. I don’t have a Tiktok account.

Is the internet making us stupid? Not necessarily. The internet delivers a lot of information very quickly in response to what you might be seeking. But, it’s still up to the user to choose which resources are actually credible and worthwhile. Unfortunately, many search engine responses are no more reliable than the office rumour mill. It is like trying to depend on what your colleague said that he heard from his cousin.

Learning how to find quality information on the internet is a key part of digital literacy. Diverse viewpoints, and diverse sources are important tools to keep the online world from making us stupid. You need to break free from the echo chamber that amplifies similar thoughts and preconceived notions, smothering what could be important dissenting opinions. As a general rule, if none of your sources of news and opinion make you angry, I’d suggest you aren’t reading sufficiently diverse viewpoints.

I recently wrote about Alberta’s approach to upgrading digital literacy skills. I also refer you to a recent article from ITIF. I’ll have more on digital literacy in a future post.

In the meantime, how do you find consistently trustworthy sources of information?

For years now, I keep trying to explain why you can’t look at ARPU trends to determine trends in pricing. Conflating ARPU trends with pricing is one of those zombie fallacies – we can’t seem to kill it no matter how hard we try. But I am going to give it another go anyway.

Last week, the government released its annual review of telecom prices [full report pdf, 1.8MB]. The report found that “prices for most wireless and home Internet services declined in 2023”. Notably, the media release observed that mobile prices in Japan and the USA were consistently higher than those prices paid in Canada. It is also worth noting that the study was conducted using October 2023 price data. Since then, Canadian mobile prices have dropped more than 10%, while prices have increased in many of Canada’s peer countries.

We have seen Statistics Canada regularly reporting declines in mobile pricing of more than 25% as part of its monthly Consumer Price Index.

So, why the disconnect with ARPU?

ARPU is a financial analyst measure that calculates average revenue per user, by taking the total wireless service revenues and dividing by the number of subscribers. But, as I wrote 11 years ago, “Not all ARPUs are the same”. It just isn’t the same as unit prices.

Last summer, I wrote another post on the subject, “ARPU doesn’t measure price”.

That was a follow-up to a piece I wrote in 2017. I complained at that time about a number of Canadian telecommunications industry observers who confuse ‘ARPU’ with ‘prices’. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

I recently saw a post about per capita grocery spending in Canada that resonated with me:

Per capita grocery spending is down 26% over the past 4 years. Is there anyone who would look at that statistic and conclude that food prices are lower now? Of course not. Clearly, average revenue per user for Canadian grocery stores has been declining. Sounds like ARPU, right? But, we also know that the price of food items has been one of the biggest drivers of inflation. Our consumption habits change, which contributes to shifts in overall monthly spending patterns. That same reality applies to groceries and mobile services.

The items in our shopping carts today are different from the items we bought 4 years ago. It is no different for mobile services. Plans today deliver more data, faster speeds, wider calling areas and can optionally include international roaming.

So, why do so many have trouble separating flat or slightly rising wireless ARPU from falling wireless prices? Maybe it is people who don’t pay for their own phone service, or folks who have an agenda. I recently told a morning talk radio audience to call their service provider or visit any shopping mall if they haven’t looked at their mobile plans recently.

More for less. The opposite of shrinkflation as some might say. Indeed, as I have already said.

Can we finally put this to rest? ARPU trends aren’t the same as price trends. And, contrary to the assertion of some, ARPU trends aren’t representative of consumer bills either. But, that will be the subject of a future post.

Earlier this week, the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF) released a new report, Assessing Canadian Innovation, Productivity, and Competitiveness [pdf, 1.2MB; Executive Summary, 2.7MB].

The key takeaways identified in the report are:

• Canada lags peer competitors on key innovation indicators, particularly in the areas of research and development, intellectual property, and innovation outcomes.
• Canada’s productivity performance has been dismal. For comparison, American labour productivity growth was 160 percent faster than Canada’s from 2002 to 2020 — and America’s growth in that period was actually low in historical terms.
• From industry to industry, Canadian labour productivity growth is quite divergent, with some sectors growing substantially and others actually declining.
• Canada’s competitive position in advanced industries is weak, as its global market shares have fallen dramatically over the last 25 years. It now has 42 percent less advancedindustry output as a share of its economy than the global average.
• Canada’s crisis cannot be adequately understood or addressed by looking only at broad macro factors such as tax rates, infrastructure, and education. Policymakers must develop economic strategies focusing on firm, sector, and technology levels.

The Canadian Innovation, Productivity, and Competitiveness report is the first to emerge from ITIF’s new Canadian Centre for Innovation and Competitiveness. Pointing at China becoming the world’s largest manufacturer and advanced industry producer, the report says that “the demise of Nortel and the concomitant rise of Huawei were just an opening salvo.” The report also observes that Canada has not been successful at migrating the billions of dollars invested at research universities into a robust innovation economy.

More could be done to encourage universities to play a stronger role in supporting private sector innovation. The SR&ED tax credit could be redesigned to be a spur to R&D increases. Canadian policymakers could stop looking to Europe as a regulatory model for emerging technologies and instead look to the United States for ways to grow a globally vibrant technology economy.

The report lays out 10 principles to guide policy efforts for improving Canadian innovation, competitiveness and productivity. A few of these are worth highlighting here. It is notable that ITIF says Canada needs to “See big and medium-sized businesses as beautiful.” How often to we see politicians vilify success and profits, instead of celebrating these as desirable attributes, beneficial to employees, shareholders and the economy at large? ITIF also calls for Canada to “Focus less on industrial recruitment and more on supporting companies already in Canada.” The third principle that I will highlight recommends that we “Reject the precautionary principle and embrace the innovation principle.”

Canadians are feeling that the economy is in a crisis. Young people no longer expect to be more successful than their parents. Home ownership is out of reach for many. As ITIF notes, many people consider “that the continuation of the status quo economy will lead to a less-prosperous Canada.”

The report’s conclusion leads us to ask if there is an opportunity for leaders in the private and public sectors to leverage the momentum of a growing consensus, to make bold changes to transform Canada’s economy. The status quo is not an option.

Which political party will adopt a more complete innovation-driven economic agenda to drive productivity and competitiveness?

Canadian parliamentarians of all stripes are failing to lead.

Over the past two months, Canadians have witnessed theatrics take the lead as corporate executives appeared in front of parliamentary committees. In early March, I wrote about “faux outrage” expressed by members of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology (INDU). These parliamentarians have have numerous occasions to ask questions and actually listen to answers from telecom industry professionals. Of course, that would require that the MPs do real research when preparing their report on “Accessibility and Affordability of Wireless and Broadband Services in Canada”.

You can read the transcript from the March 18 meeting of INDU, or watch the replay. The parliamentary Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage (CHPC) was no better. It summoned Bell’s CEO to explain the recent round of staffing cuts. I encourage you to watch the 2-hour video replay. MPs should be embarrassed by their performances.

It quickly became clear that none of the questioners bothered to listen to a word in the opening statement. None of them adjusted the scripts that had been prepared for them. MPs recited incorrect facts and refused to allow the witness to correct them.

I don’t think I would have had the strength to resist using unparliamentary language had I faced such questioning. It was political theatrics, an unproductive waste of time.

These meetings were opportunities to engage in public discussions with the CEOs of some of Canada’s biggest employers. The time was squandered while MPs of all stripes sought to create transcript excerpts to include in their constituent newsletters. It was a shameful display.

At the April CHPC meeting, one of the MPs accused Bell of tax evasion – a criminal act. Another impugned the integrity of the CEO saying he feigned an inability to hear a part of the question.

I’m sure the MPs got a kick out of the experience. Beating up a highly paid CEO plays well to the masses. Great theatre.

Parliamentary committees provide an opportunity to explore issues in greater detail than we expect in the House of Commons. Unfortunately, multiple meetings of INDU and CHPC could have explored telecom policy in depth. The meetings hosted executives charged with building Canada’s critical digital infrastructure. Parliamentarians might have examined whether there are any policy levers that led to layoffs at Canada’s largest private broadcaster. What is standing in the way of further investment? What are industry trends here and abroad? As employers of hundreds of thousands of Canadians, do you have ideas for improving Canada’s productivity.

I am not saying that parliamentarians should have policy written by corporate executives. But, we watched MPs failing to lead when they squandered multiple meetings with the CEOs of some of Canada’s biggest and most widely held companies. These are the leaders of companies that employ of tens of thousands of Canadians, pay billions of dollars in taxes and fees to the government and invest billions of dollars annually in digital infrastructure.

Nobody asked big picture questions. No one, not even opposition members, thought to explore whether government policy can be to improved. I heard no one ask, “how can we help?” It was a missed opportunity to engage. It was time and an opportunity squandered in search of “gotcha” moments. Again.

Pity.

The way social media harms our kids has been in the news lately. I am not talking about the Online Harms Act, which has been the subject of a number of my recent posts. I will also not be talking (at least not in this post) about the inappropriateness of the Governor General hosting a forum about Online Harms when a bill is being reviewed by Parliament.

Four of the largest school boards in Canada launched a lawsuit against the owners of Facebook, Instagram, SnapChat and TikTok. The suit accuses them of “negligently designing products that disrupt learning and rewire student behaviour while leaving educators to manage the fallout.” The Boards of Education are seeking $4.5B and asking for a redesign of the platforms “to keep students safe.” School Boards are represented by personal injury firm Neinstein LLP, which has taken the case on contingency. More than 200 school boards in the US have launched similar suits.

Eight years ago, I wrote “Is Social Media Better At Breaking Than Making?” That post referred to a Tom Friedman piece in the New York Times (“Social Media: Destroyer or Creator?”). It also included a TED Talk by Wael Ghonim, a former Google employee in Egypt whose Facebook page was credited with helping launch the Arab Spring. In his talk, Ghonim says “Five years ago, I said, ‘If you want to liberate society, all you need is the Internet.’ Today, I believe if we want to liberate society, we first need to liberate the Internet.'”

The talk is worth watching. In my view, it stands the test of time.

But, let’s return to that school board lawsuit. The claim is that these social media platforms “rewire student behaviour while leaving educators to manage the fallout.”

A new book by Jonathan Haidt is attracting some attention on this theme of “rewiring”. “The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness” was released last month. He claims that social media platforms are responsible for “displacing physical play and in-person socializing.” How? By “designing a firehose of addictive content that entered through kids’ eyes and ears”. In doing so, “these companies have rewired childhood and changed human development on an almost unimaginable scale”.

A critical review of the book in Nature triggered a lengthy rebuttal on Twitter.

The author of the review in Nature is Candice Odgers, associate dean for research and professor of psychological science and informatics at University of California, Irvine. She has a distinctly Canadian connection. Odgers co-leads international networks on child development for Canadian Institute for Advanced Research in Toronto. She says science doesn’t support the thesis of digital technologies rewiring children’s brains, causing “an epidemic of mental illness.” According to Odgers, Haidt’s work confuses correlation with causation. Specifically, she says studies have not found use of social-media predicts or causes depression. Rather, the research shows those who already have mental-health problems use such platforms differently compared to others.

Haidt’s response, a 984 word, 6311 character post on Twitter (X), has attracted more than 1.5 million views. (I remember when tweets were restricted to a maximum of 140 characters.) His post includes links to collections of resources referenced in his book.

That academic debate is certain to continue.

How should social media platforms be regulated? What is the role of schools, teachers, and parents to assume respective responsibilities for kids’ use of devices and apps?