New Canadian app Gander wants to bring ‘the social back to social media'
Five Canadian tech entrepreneurs are hoping that what's good for the goose is good for Gander, the name of a new social media platform they are developing specifically for Canadian users.
Ben Waldman, founder and CEO, enlisted the help of four co-founders to develop Gander, a social media app for Canadians to share stories freely without facing divisive content, disinformation, and trolls on the internet.
'Just because Canada doesn't have a social media platform, doesn't mean we shouldn't,' Waldman told BNN Bloomberg in a Tuesday interview. 'I think this is the time we can do it.'
The social media site will feature prompts to write posts and upload videos enabling users to tailor their feed to the types of content they enjoy. Users will then be able to toggle their content to large, public domains or strictly to a Canada-only network should they choose.
'One of the big focuses for us is bringing the social back to social media,' said Waldman. 'I love creators. I love, like many people, to flip through TikToks and just consume content and on other platforms, but I think there's a certain overwhelming percentage of people that aren't using social media to socialize anymore.'
The app is expected to launch in October as an alternative to U.S. tech companies Meta and X, formerly Twitter. Consumers will be able to take a gander through the app and view their friends' stories and content they value rather than what an algorithm provides. The goal is to encourage people to interact with each other more frequently.
'The idea is to start these small pods of communities across Canada where those people will be able to invite their friends or invite their colleagues, so that ultimately, we're creating this network of people again, that all know each other,' said Waldman.
He says users on the app will be verified to ensure they are human, not a bot, and must be of age to use it. They will have the right to post content based off the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as long as it is not considered hate speech. Explicit content will be labeled to users so they can decide whether they want to engage. There will also be tools to identify disinformation and bias in articles.
'We want to integrate these kinds of features in to start bringing Canadians and people generally back together again, because we used to be able to have conversations across the table, even if they were contentious, without being so divided with so much risk to our democracy,' said Waldman.
He said users will be able to consume content the way they want whether it features a hockey team, band or posts from their mother, for example. It will be catered to their preference as well, allowing them to enjoy videos more or written content if they choose.
'The feed becomes under your control, and you get to consume it the way you want to,' said Waldman. 'Do you like to consume text content? Kind of like Twitter? Go for it. That's if that's your jam. Do it. If your preference is to swipe videos, then choose to do that, all while making sure that what you want to see is in front of you based on your decisions, not ours.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Globe and Mail
43 minutes ago
- Globe and Mail
How Michael Sabia can make Ottawa move fast and build things
Michael Sabia is being asked to reverse, in a matter of months, an inertia that has taken hold in the nation's capital over decades. Since Prime Minister Mark Carney announced that the erstwhile chief executive officer of Hydro-Québec will serve as Clerk of the Privy Council – the country's top bureaucrat – Ottawa has been rife with speculation about how Mr. Sabia will try to light a fire under a federal public service accustomed to moving more slowly and cautiously than is demanded by the current moment. But while much of the chatter following Mr. Sabia's June 11 appointment has been about personnel changes to the bureaucracy's highest ranks – through an expansive shuffle of deputy ministers, the most senior civil servants in each ministry, expected this summer – that only scratches the surface of what's needed to get things rolling. Hanging in the balance is an agenda, put forward by Mr. Carney to assert Canada's economic sovereignty, that's at odds with the government's implementation capacity to date. It includes fast-tracking energy and infrastructure projects, scaling homegrown technologies, diversifying exports, building housing, reorienting immigration, developing self-reliant supply chains and leveraging industrial gains from increased defence spending. Opinion: Michael Sabia faces an uphill climb in reforming Canada's civil service The scale of the challenge – and what sorts of structural, cultural and personnel changes could be required – were conveyed to The Globe and Mail in recent interviews with two dozen people closely familiar with the bureaucracy's workings, including current and former deputy ministers and senior political officials. Although there was recognition that some departments have functioned better than others (and some have stepped up in other times of crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic and 2008 global financial meltdown), they highlighted an array of overarching barriers that have taken root since the 1990s, if not earlier. Among them are a depletion of talent despite the bureaucracy's total ranks growing; particular lack of implementation expertise in some economic areas and policy mechanisms Mr. Carney is prioritizing; disconnect between the public and private sectors; a lack of clear lines of accountability; failure to make use of modern technologies; and severe aversion to taking risks. Mr. Sabia's suitability to tackling all of that, if anyone can, is a subject of considerable debate. Over a late-career run that has included heading pension giant Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, serving as deputy finance minister and then leading Hydro-Québec, he's earned a reputation as a creative policy maker and architect of big, ambitious projects. Among them are the Canada Infrastructure Bank, the Canada Growth Fund and a new hydroelectricity relationship between Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador. He is also, like Mr. Carney, a rare Canadian executive who has moved fluidly between government and the private sector, giving him an unusual combination of institutional knowledge and outside perspective. At the same time, with his federal experience limited mostly to the Finance department, he may have less knowledge of government-wide dynamics than previous clerks who were career bureaucrats. Sharing some of Mr. Carney's suffer-no-fools reputation, it's an open question how he'll fare at bringing others along. And with a recent pattern of staying in jobs long enough to set big plans in motion and then moving on, it's not clear how much emphasis he'll place on long-term systemic reforms. But If ever there were a time for impatience to be a virtue, this might be it. While there are widespread calls around Ottawa for a formal, government-wide program review to comprehensively reallocate resources and modernize rules and processes – the sort of effort last seriously undertaken by Jean Chrétien's government in the '90s – that push could take most of Mr. Carney's mandate to complete. By then, the opportunity to seize on Canada's elbows-up moment with a transformative economic agenda, in response to U.S. President Donald Trump, might have passed. The hope among some reform-minded government veterans is that Mr. Carney and Mr. Sabia land on a two-track approach – in which they set in motion long-term structural overhaul, to leave the government in better shape than they found it, but more immediately send whatever signals and create whatever workarounds are needed to get stuff done now. That may not be a viable pathway to overcoming every obstacle. There may, for instance, be few quick fixes for Ottawa's reliance on outdated technologies and information systems. But three of the biggest potential obstacles to implementing Mr. Carney's agenda are instructive, in terms of how it could work. A common perception in Ottawa is that high-level bureaucratic talent has diminished over the past couple of decades. More specifically, there are widely acknowledged expertise gaps. In a government that has traditionally done most spending through grants and transfer payments, that includes lack of comfort with more complex financial tools that Mr. Carney may be looking to deploy in industrial strategies. And lack of employment mobility, between the public and private sectors, has contributed to a perceived disconnect between career bureaucrats in Ottawa and policies' real-world impacts. There are many fundamental ways to address those shortcoming – new strategies around recruitment and career advancement, changing pay structures, using technology to expedite glacial hiring processes. Most contentiously, but increasingly whispered about, Ottawa could loosen bilingualism requirements to broaden its pool. Canada has 'ambition deficit' and regulations that are scaring away investment, Sabia says In the near term, the most obvious lever is the anticipated deputy-minister shuffle, following a small shuffle that took place this month. It could see Mr. Sabia bringing in some new faces, and perhaps more so trying to elevate younger talent already in the bureaucracy, even if they have not worked their way up as gradually as has been customary. But many people interviewed for this story also suggested Ottawa may have to get more creative about bringing in people from industry – and possibly provincial governments – to work on policy priorities of Mr. Carney's for which they have specific expertise. That could potentially be done under Interchange Canada, an underutilized federal program enabling exchanges between the public and private sectors. It could also see people seconded from outside government, forming hybrid teams with bureaucrats to advance key files. Navigating conflict-of-interest considerations would be a challenge – but not, by most accounts, an insurmountable one. And Mr. Sabia's unusual history straddling the public and private sectors could help convince others to do so. A near-universal lament is that civil servants feel incentivized to keep their heads down and avoid risks – in putting forward new ideas, or taking ownership of moving policies forward. That's partly because of additional rules and guidelines layered on after any sort of spending or ethics controversy. Paring those down, to maintain but simplify accountability, is seen as a long-term play. But it's also because of a common perception that politicians are prepared to throw bureaucrats under the bus – or shove them in front of parliamentary committees – at the first sign of trouble, rather than taking heat themselves. And that's where there may be an opportunity to quickly pursue culture change. Mr. Sabia could help by sending a signal across the bureaucracy that people who take initiative and move quickly will be valued. Much will come down to Mr. Carney. His tone, early on, has suggested that expedience and ambition are the priority. But bureaucrats tend to say that the real message about risk tolerance will come from how tolerant he and his ministers prove when moving fast causes something to go wrong. Another oft-cited reason for slowness and lack of individual initiative is that there are too many cooks in the kitchen. While recent growth of the total federal workforce (well above 300,000 people) is likely to be targeted by Mr. Carney for cost savings, ballooning upper ranks – assistant deputy ministers, associate deputy ministers, directors-general, etc. – have particularly bogged down decision-making by creating hierarchical confusion. So too, bureaucrats counter, has an excess of political staff – numbering around 800, by the end of former prime minister Justin Trudeau's tenure, far more than in other Westminster democracies – dipping in and out of files. Not to mention decisions notoriously getting log-jammed in the Prime Minister's Office. That crowdedness is crying out for a review aimed at paring back and simplifying lines of authority. But some of that could be done informally, for now. While a small number of top priorities will inevitably have heavy involvement from the PMO – and the Privy Council Office, the (also enlarged) bureaucratic department that supports it – the rest could be delegated to ministries with minimal central interference. And deputies there could be pushed to identify a small number of their top performers to push things through, bruised egos be damned. As with other possible quick fixes, it could be inelegant. But Mr. Carney has been elected, and Mr. Sabia appointed, with promised focus on results. Those results may include a dramatically restructured federal government. But they may not have time to wait for it, if they want to get everything else done.
National Post
an hour ago
- National Post
Michael Taube: Mark Carney leans European, but needs to buy American again
Article content It will also 'promote multilateral dialogue and co-operation with like-minded countries in relevant areas of security and defence where considered mutually beneficial.' Some of the matters mentioned in the agreement include support to Ukraine, peacekeeping operations, military mobility, maritime security, sharing information on defence initiatives and cybersecurity. Article content And it doesn't stop there. Businesses will be encouraged to 'grow and diversify markets by fully and effectively implementing' the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement. The parties also agreed to work towards a 'digital trade agreement,' 'identify trends and risks of mutual concern that could affect our economic security,' 'reduce barriers and strengthen agriculture and agrifood trade' and focus on shared energy needs. Article content What about the future of Canada-U.S. relations? While there have been issues between our two countries due to U.S. President Donald Trump's tariffs and leadership style, it's vitally important for Carney to rebuild ties with the U.S. There have been political, economic and military disagreements between Canada and the U.S. before. We fought one another during the War of 1812. Nevertheless, we always found ways to agree to disagree and move forward like good friends and allies do. Article content Article content Things looked promising at one point. Carney said earlier this month that his government was 'in intensive negotiations with the Americans' to end the tariffs on aluminum and steel that chilled relations between our two countries. Carney and Trump also agreed to work towards an economic and security pact within the next 30 days during last week's G7 summit in Kananaskis, Alta. Article content Alas, Carney's determined tone has noticeably shifted. He's now hemming and hawing about the path forward. 'We'll do what's right for Canada,' he told reporters in Brussels. 'We're working hard to get a deal, but we'll only accept the right deal with the United States. The right deal is possible, but nothing's assured.' Article content Trump then announced on Friday through his Truth Social account that he was 'terminating ALL discussions on Trade with Canada, effective immediately.' Why? This was due to Canada's decision to introduce a 'Digital Services Tax on our American Technology Companies.' Trump believed the Carney Liberal government was 'obviously copying the European Union' with this tax, and felt it was a 'direct and blatant attack' on the U.S. Article content Article content No one is suggesting that Carney is obligated to bend to Trump's every whim and desire during these crucial negotiations. At the same time, this is hardly the sort of descriptive language and rhetorical tone he should be using in public before the July 21 deadline. Article content If there have been issues between the two sides, fine. All Carney had to do was take a more neutral position for the bulk of the 30-day process and crescendo accordingly. This would have shown that he recognized the importance of preserving Canada-U.S. relations and was taking things seriously. It would have been hard to argue against such logic. Article content It appears that Carney's infatuation with the EU has further strained our friendship with the U.S. for the foreseeable future. While some will claim that Trump is the main reason, it's a false narrative. He'll be out of office in a number of years, as will Carney. The devastating political and economic effects of a fractured Canada-U.S. relationship will last long past then. Article content Article content Article content
Globe and Mail
an hour ago
- Globe and Mail
2 No-Brainer High-Yield Stocks to Buy With $1,000 Right Now
Annaly Capital Management (NYSE: NLY) is offering a massive 14%-plus dividend yield today. And the dividend was just increased at the start of 2025, too. Sounds great, right? But, before you run out and buy the stock, you need to dig into the company's history just a little bit. You'll likely be better off with the lower yields on offer from Realty Income (NYSE: O) and Bank of Nova Scotia (NYSE: BNS). Here's why Annaly could set income investors up for failure while Realty Income and Bank of Nova Scotia should leave you rolling in the dough. Where to invest $1,000 right now? Our analyst team just revealed what they believe are the 10 best stocks to buy right now. Continue » What are you looking to achieve with dividends? Dividend investors come in all shapes and sizes, so there's no one right way to invest in dividend stocks. However, a common theme is that dividend investors are often trying to create an income stream that can support them in retirement. This is an important fact to consider as you invest your hard-earned savings, be it $100, $1,000, or $100,000. Far too often, investors chase yield without giving proper consideration to the risk of dividend cuts. This is the big problem with Annaly Capital Management's huge dividend yield. The company is a mortgage real estate investment trust (mREIT). That means it buys mortgages that have been pooled into bond-like securities, not physical properties that it leases to tenants. Mortgage REITs are very similar to mutual funds, with the REITs earning the difference between their costs (which include interest expenses) and the interest they receive from the securities they buy. There are a lot of moving parts, but the important outcome is that the dividends that mREITs pay have proven to be rather unreliable. As the chart below highlights, even though Annaly Capital just increased its dividend in 2025, that comes after a long string of cuts. And even before that string of cuts, the dividend was up and down. Data by YCharts. Notice, however, that the share price has tended to trend along with the dividend. So that long downtrend in the dividend meant that income-focused investors would have been left with less income and less capital. That's a terrible outcome for anyone trying to live off their dividends. Stick with consistent dividend stocks Compare the ups and downs of Annaly Capital's dividend to the three decades worth of annual dividend increases on offer from the property-owning REIT Realty Income. Its 5.6% yield may be lower, but if you want to feel comfortable that you'll keep getting paid at the same or higher rate, Realty Income wins hands down. And the business model is much easier for investors to understand, given that Realty Income does the same thing you would do if you owned a rental property, only on a much larger scale. Scale is important here, though, because Realty Income is the largest net lease REIT, which just means its tenants pay for most property-level operating costs. Being large has allowed Realty Income to become highly diversified, with over 15,600 properties spread across the United States and Europe. It owns retail, industrial, and a fairly broad group of "other" assets, like vineyards and casinos. All in, it is one of the most diversified and reliable REITs you can own. Boring is really the name of the game for high-yield Realty Income. For those who don't mind taking on a little more risk, a good choice could be Bank of Nova Scotia, commonly known as Scotiabank. It has paid a dividend every single year since 1833. It didn't cut its dividend like many of the largest U.S. banks did during the Great Recession between 2007 and 2009. And while it paused the increases in its dividend in 2024 as it shifted its business model slightly, it increased them again in 2025. Add in a lofty 5.9% dividend yield, and you can see why dividend investors might be attracted to the stock. The key here is that Scotiabank is Canadian. Canada has a highly regulated banking market, with regulators basically giving a handful of large banks entrenched positions. Scotiabank is one of those banks, so the business has a very strong foundation. The heavy regulation has also created a conservative ethos that permeates Scotiabank's operations both in its home market and abroad. That said, a decision to focus on Central and South America for growth didn't pan out as well as management had hoped. Scotiabank is now refocusing its growth on Mexico and the United States, and making solid early progress. The dividend increase is proof of that. Scotiabank is another solid option if you are looking to buy a reliable dividend stock. What does $1,000 get you? With $1,000, you can buy around 18 shares of Scotiabank and 17 shares of Realty Income. And then you can sit back and collect attractive yields that are backed by dividends that are likely to grow over time. Or you can buy 50 or so shares of ultra-high-yielding Annaly Capital and pray that the income stream in the future isn't as volatile as the mREIT's dividend history suggests it will be. Most dividend investors will be better off with Realty Income and Scotiabank. Should you invest $1,000 in Annaly Capital Management right now? Before you buy stock in Annaly Capital Management, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Annaly Capital Management wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $704,676!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $950,198!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor 's total average return is1,048% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to175%for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 23, 2025
